kcdusk Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Are carriers powerhouses or sitting ducks? Can transatlantic convoys survive in a modern wartime environment? In the cat-and-mouse games between US and Russian submarines, which is better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CV32 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Not sure any of these are H4 specific questions, but anyhow ... Are carriers powerhouses or sitting ducks? Carriers themselves are sitting ducks, but a carrier air wing (properly constituted) is a powerhouse. Can transatlantic convoys survive in a modern wartime environment? Sure, the convoy can survive as a whole, given adequate AEW, AAW, and ASW coverage. Remove either of these, and the risk of loss climbs dramatically. In the cat-and-mouse games between US and Russian submarines, which is better? Undoubtedly American submarines have been better boats overall, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhorse64 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Are carriers powerhouses or sitting ducks? Well, the carrier by itself is rather vulnerable to most threats. The carrier with its air group embarked has a fair ability to protect itself, and a tremendous ability to project power. The carrier, with air group embarked, and its associated escort and logistical support ships attached, practically defines the term 'powerhouse'. The world has spent the last 50-odd years looking for a counter, and it's not all that clear that they've found any ... Can transatlantic convoys survive in a modern wartime environment? Hmm, there's a lot of hidden assumptions in this question. If you mean, 'can NATO run transatlantic convoys against Russian opposition' then the answer is almost certainly yes. But the North Atlantic is a NATO lake; it's surrounded by friendly bases, and NATO has more and better assets. The Russians would have to run a gauntlet just to get into the theatre. It would be surprising if NATO wasn't up to the job. If the US wanted to run convoys to Murmansk, against European opposition? That might be a different story. Might be some interesting scenarios in that thought. In the cat-and-mouse games between US and Russian submarines, which is better? In general, the American boats have been better, and look to stay that way for a while yet. But that's a general rule only. If you put an American nuke up against a first-rate Russian diesel in shallow, noisy water, it's not nearly so clear-cut ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brains Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 In the cat-and-mouse games between US and Russian submarines, which is better? In general, the American boats have been better, and look to stay that way for a while yet. But that's a general rule only. If you put an American nuke up against a first-rate Russian diesel in shallow, noisy water, it's not nearly so clear-cut ... Shallow water full of nasty quiet diesels? This is what subsurface bursts are for... "Nuke 'em from orbit, it is the only way to be sure." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CV32 Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Are carriers powerhouses or sitting ducks? This may be of interest: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...amp;#entry18135 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VCDH Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Modern as in 2009? I would have to say that NATO would have a pretty easy time of it today. Despite it's recent oil weath, the Russian Armed Forces are undergoing a massive change in operating requirements and doctrine at the moment. While the navy is still a submarine force and defense of it's strategic deterrent is still a priority, events on the international stage are forcing it to expand it's area of influence from coastal matters into the blue water. While the Russian Navy has considerable power influencing regional events [as last years fight with Georgia has shown], less can be said about operations farther abroad. This is partly due to the lack of money and recent experience in long range operations and partly with the poor state of Russian shipbuilding. Recently there have been published reports of the Russians abandoning their domestic shipyards and looking towards foreign built designs to meet their requirements. Specifically the requirement to increase their numbers of amphibious ships. According to a recent Proceedings article, Russia is looking at purchasing either the French Mistral or Dutch Rotterdamm/Johann de Witt designs. With regards to sea denial [including anti-convoy] operations, the North Atlantic is still NATO's lake and there is nowhere near the numbers of aircraft now that were available during the Soviet era. Even back during the later 1970's to early 1980's when the balance of power was tipped in the Soviets favor, there was still a requirement for blasting a hole in the GIUK gap so the Badgers and Backfires could exit into the North Atlantic to hunt. It wasn't until the later half of that era that the Soviets had the tactical aircraft to operate that far from home. The only alternative for the Soviets was to supress [as opposed to occupy] Iceland and possibly the UKs Northern air fields. The only way to do that long term was either through the use of nukes or [more likely] persistent chemical weapons. Either step is a major jump on the escalation ladder, and a reversal of the Soviet's 'No First Use' policy they so dearly espoused. With the draw down in Chemical Weapons, this really isn't a valid option in modern times. Submarines would have had a much easier time of it, especially if there was a period of at least several days to one week prior to hostilities to allow them to cross NATO barriers without molestation and scatter into the Atlantic. The qualitative gap between Russia and the West has narrowed since the 1989 but it is still there. The biggest problem for NATO would be the US moving on from ASW and into the so called 'littoral' operations. Their lack of ASW training will leave a large gap in the numbers of effective ASW units. This coupled with the retirement of the S-3 Viking will leave a large gap in ASW coverage for both the carriers and the convoys. The biggest problem the subs face is what happens when they run out of torpedoes. The Russians don't have that many sub tenders to go around and it would be too risky for them to undertake blue water operations. The best they could hope for is a sheltered fijord in Norway or maybe Greenland, which requires subs to cross the GUIK gap again. But again I emphasize that Russian units, while of better quality compared to what they had in 1989, lack the numbers and logistics to undertake sustained operations far from home for any period of time. With continued revenues from Oil and other natural resources I can see this changing inside of a decade but it will probably be longer than that. Russia has always been a land power first and currently most of Russians immediate problems lie in that arena [Georgia and Chechnya and to a lesser extent China and Iran]. Poland and the BMD issue are really bargaining chips for the Russians to get help on other matters with. Later D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhorse64 Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Shallow water full of nasty quiet diesels? This is what subsurface bursts are for... "Nuke 'em from orbit, it is the only way to be sure." Heh ... leaving aside the obvious escalation and environmental issues, you have to find the nasty quiet diesels first ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Hunter UK Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nice explanation, VCDH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcdusk Posted December 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Is there anywhere in the H4.1 rules which talks specifically about communications (radio) being used and giving away your position via detection? I know theres radar, sonar and a few other detection methods. But if a unit (ship, sub or aircraft) "talks", is there any rule which discusses the potential for it to give your position away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CV32 Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Is there anywhere in the H4.1 rules which talks specifically about communications (radio) being used and giving away your position via detection? I know theres radar, sonar and a few other detection methods. But if a unit (ship, sub or aircraft) "talks", is there any rule which discusses the potential for it to give your position away? I don't think the rules address it. The whole field of communications EW and ESM is quite complex, but the simplest, of course, is basic direction finding (DF) gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcdusk Posted January 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Is CaS a WWII version of H4.1? Is/has anyone played it? Any good? I'm thinking of getting it to playout some U-boat wolfpak tactics against a convoy ... __________________________________________________ Anyone know of any harpoon PBM type sites/games (apart from SilentHunters)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmaidhof Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 I'm sure a more definite answer will be forthcoming, but they are very similar, definitely related. Will be even moreso when the unification project is complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Hunter UK Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Anyone know of any harpoon PBM type sites/games (apart from SilentHunters)? There's Bill Jennings' "The War in 2012", although its more an operational level game with Harpoon as its base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcdusk Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Best submarine/harpoon type movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CV32 Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Best submarine/harpoon type movie? My favorite, for a submarine movie is Das Boot, hands down. Others include Run Silent, Run Deep and The Enemy Below. In the modern era, Crimson Tide and of course The Hunt for Red October. This post might make for a better thread in the Shore Leave forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.