Attacking the german fleet!

[HortenFlyingWing]

maybe my strategy is flawed, but I do an all out attack on every allied ship:

1 sub versus american transport
1 fighter from wetsern europe versus brit trans
one battle ship and one trans versus brit battleship
3 fighters, one bomber, one trans and one sub versus brit and russian fleet in north sea
last fighter from ukraine flies to egypt and attacks with one tank and one infantry.
With a fighter in libya, and a fighter in western europe, i can attack any transport that might of survived trying to reclaim africa.
this has worked for me…

[TG Moses VI]

Sounds good, but are you playing this with single hit BBs and Russia Restricted? Also you plan leaves out the Sub in the Egypt Sea Zone. Why not use the ftr. sent to Egypt to take this out?

[HortenFlyingWing]

On 2002-03-28 15:52, TG Moses VI wrote:
Sounds good, but are you playing this with single hit BBs and Russia Restricted? Also you plan leaves out the Sub in the Egypt Sea Zone. Why not use the ftr. sent to Egypt to take this out?

Yes, definantly russia restricted and one hit BBs. two hit bbs are too good a deal for 24 IPCs. When I play russia unrestricted (never two hit bbs though) i just use the aircraft. the fighter is need to tip the scale in the egypt battle. the bomber and british fighters can kill your bb anyway, and i just cannot afford splitting my resources too thin to attack the sub. if you capture egypt, britain can’t escape to the indian ocean.

[Ozone27]

I used to try to sink every Allied ship in the Med/North Atlantic, and it is possible, but I found I was losing too many aircraft. The most important things are to sink the Allied fleets in the Med (to prevent the BMR + whatever’s in the Med attack by UK) and to sink the fleet in the North Sea (to put off any D-Day attampts until you are ready).

Over time I’ve come to believe that UK SUB to be one of the most important kills of the game. Sink the BBs obviously, but sinking that SUB gives you precious time in the Med to move into Africa…

Our group doesn’t play w/ Russia Restricted OR 2-Hit BBs. Nothing against RR, but I agree with Horten on 2-Hit BBs;I also think that 2-Hit BBs takes away from the BB’s historical vulnerability to aircraft–I know A & A BB units represent ALL surface units (CAs, DDs, etc.) but still, 2 hit seems a bit much…

Ozone27

[TG Moses VI]

Well based on the units portrayed in A&A:Eurpoe and Pacific (which might make no difference whatsoever), I say the battleships represented of the different powers were top of the line (ie King Geroge, Bismark, Yamoto (I think?), ect.

Even if you were to attack these battleships with aircraft the most you can really do is cripple a ship, which is a challenge in itself. In such extreme casses, the Yamato was sunck by aircraft… some 250 divebombers.

Other then that these battleships were renowned for their armor. The Yamato itself had a belt armor 16.1"

[HortenFlyingWing]

the yamoto weighed almost twice as much as any other battleship on earth! though the tirpitz didn’t seem to want to die. still, in the game, one bomber doesn’t truly represent one bomber. it might represent a thousand.

[TG Moses VI]

Ture, but I think that 1 ftr or 1 bomber should represent a squadron and at most a group. Also wants not to say this is a whole fleet of battleships then!?

As for the Triptiz, kinda sucks when you get crippled by British Midget Submarines.

[Ozone27]

But the principle remains the same: nobody builds Battleships anymore because the cost greatly outweighs the usefulness. A BB can destroy targets up to 20 miles away. A Carrier can destroy targets hundreds of miles away. A BB will be sunk long before it even approaches to within striking distance of a Carrier.

The only time I know when a Carrier was sunk by a battleship (or battlecruiser in this case) was during the Norway operations when Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sunk a British Carrier. This was in a severe squall when the Carrier could not launch its planes and had poor reconnaissance as well, as a result.
This is the only incident I can think of.

The game reflects this historical fact by having the advantage of range and firepower be with the 2 FTRs on a fully laden Carrier. W/ 2-hit BBs this is not necessarily the case, so I disagree with it on an histroical level.

Ozone27

[TG Moses VI]

Actually with the invention of cruise missiles and other long range weapons that can be fired from battleships, the Battleships are one again the old glory ships of yesteryear. I agree that the battleship has outlived it’s once dominant usefulness but there’s still no disputing the BB’s incredible armour and the fact that any admiral would be proud to serve aboard a battleship.

[HortenFlyingWing]

"–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually with the invention of cruise missiles and other long range weapons that can be fired from battleships, the Battleships are one again the old glory ships of yesteryear. I agree that the battleship has outlived it’s once dominant usefulness but there’s still no disputing the BB’s incredible armour and the fact that any admiral would be proud to serve aboard a battleship. "

When it comes down to it, BBs are only good for cheap bombardment these days. No ship surpasses the beauty of a battleship. A carrier is plane, the battleship seems to be built with emotion.

Maybe the battleship will comeback when EMPs enter warfare. I’m still rooting for rigid airships though, but hey, they are making a comeback!

[TG Moses VI]

Let’s not forget rail gun technology! I would definately say that BBs would be making a comeback. Maybe the USS Missouri’s guns will once again have their mothballs taken out the great ship will ride out of Pearl Harbor like it did in Desert Storm!

[Ozone27]

YEEAAHH Zeppelins ROCK! I have been following their resurgence closely–they’re hoping to use them to spot mines in formerly war-torn countries: a good use for the former tool of war…

Have you read Wilbur Cross’ book “Zeppelins of WW1”? The story of the Zeppelin crews should be heard…

About BBs–I am not trying to dis them, I’m just stating an unfortunate fact. They are an anachronism. Yes they are the proudest and most intimidating ships on the seas. But while surface ships have been making somewhat of a comeback since the 1980s, due largely–as you mentioned–to the power of the missile and of computerized defense systems, the basic purpose of the battleship, that is, to come to grips with and destroy other battleships (and basically anything else that can’t get away) in tremendous line-of-battle engagements cannot happen on the high seas today. The Carrier Task Force has replaced the old Line of Battle. The big, slow Battleship, no matter how intimidating or well-armored, cannot win in a modern naval battle–sad, but true…

Ozone27

[HortenFlyingWing]

yes, there is a german company building two rigid airships larger than the hindenburg for lifting entire construction sites.

Zeppelin is building airships (semi rigid) already in operation for touring. they plan to make 40 of them, and i heard there are also plans for trans-atlantic airships.

Cruise-ships made a comeback, because of vacationers, not speed. imagine taking a slow beautiful tour without loud helicopter sounds…the beauty of a rigid airship. damn, i hope they comeback…they just might fifty years from now. just to think that in the 1950s, the world only had two airships all together. that was it.

I got all of my blimp info from a book i got for ten bucks called “Hindenburg” by Rick Archbold. great book with a lot of rare pictures.

[TG Moses VI]

For now BB ships have met an unfortunate fate. However as MacAruthur once said, “A good soldier never dies, he just fades away.” I wouldn’t say BB have faded away just yet. They’re roles have changed from ship to ship engagements to anti-aircraft and cruise missile roles. But in the future who knows? Maybe with the invention of long range ballistics you’ll once again ship-to-ship battles hundred of miles away.

[TG Moses VI]

Oh as for the airship fact, I would love it if they returned en mass. I always wanted to ride an airship after watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. And from what I 've read, the Hindenberg disaster wasn’t actually based on the fact of its hydrogen power.

[HortenFlyingWing]

the hindenburg was sabotaged IMO. They say it was blown down by static electricity…i don’t think so. it has been documented that it has been struck by lightning, so isn’t that a bigger zap? lightning didn’t take it down, so i doubt a tiny zap would.

The fire seems to have started near the back. there was an area where people can access deep inside the airship, and there was a man named Spehl who had access to the axial walkway, and could of placed a bomb there. He had anti-nazi friends, and taking down the hindenburg was like taking down the twin towers. it was symbolic. in fact, the hindenburg was hours late, and the bomb was probably supposed to go off without any real casualties. at least IMO.

[Ozone27]

Regardless of whether it was sabotage or not, hydrogen-filled airships are dangerous to operate and when they crash there are rarely any survivors. The modern Zeps are all filled with Helium with little or no apparent drop in performance…

Ozone27

[Ozone27]

When they invent a naval gun that can accurately shell targets beyond or even at the range and precision of modern jet fighters and cruise missiles, then yeah, the BB may have a comeback. But until then don’t hold your breath…

Ozone27

[HortenFlyingWing]

Hydrogen lifts better than helium, but modern technology probably lessens the need for as much ballast.

[TG Moses VI]

Helium power? Isn’t that also flameable or am I thinking of a different element?

Naval guns are pretty accurate. But they’re more used in mass saturation then precision strikes. Sometimes you don’t have access to the neccessary tacticle information to put out such strikes. Besides, mass saturation is useful just too flatten all of the enemy’s defenses in one stroke. The BB has it’s own cruise missile to do precision bombing.