Withdrawl of sunk ships

[olorin42]

What happens if a ship that will withdraw is sunk? Do political points get taken for the rest of the game?

[wdolson]

There is no penalty. The AI Churchill forgives lost ships.

Bill

[dr.hal]

An option that I thought should be considered (that players could elect to use) is that the Allied player would have to send off an "equivalent" ship (class? VPs?) to satisfy the requirements. The rationale is simple, this ship was recalled due to needs in the European theater, those needs still exist so something should leave if the original ship was sunk. Thoughts???

[tocaff]

Good idea about an alternate ship being required to meet European needs. It would be best served with an ON/OFF switch in the Realism Options screen.

[Historiker]

We had that in WitP.
Problem: If you have to withdraw a british CV and all british CVs are sunk... [X(]

[czert2]

so withdraw  us

[Dili]

This kind of ship trade needs to be done for any Mediterranean game that will ever be build. Either side. But in the Axis side is only submarines.

Problem: If you have to withdraw a british CV and all british CVs are sunk...

In that case ship points equivalence. Could be a BB+DD.

[dr.hal]

I agree tocaff, it must be a choice, off or on. There should also be some limits. I don't think sending a US CV to cover a UK one is valid due to the differing national leadership. However that's a detail that would be worked out if it goes forward. But I do think it is worth thinking about. I don't recall it being in WITP original, but that was a long time ago.... Hal

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Dili

This kind of ship trade needs to be done for any Mediterranean game that will ever be build. Either side. But in the Axis side is only submarines.

There was the Italian Navy. I think they had a bit more than just submarines.

The Germans also operated a number of E-Boats in the Med. German Navy presence in the Med was fairly minor though.

US ships would not have been withdrawn in place of British ships. In some cases ships were not withdrawn due to any burning need on another front. British battleships were mostly used as a force in being. The only time they were really used was supporting landings.

I expect that if the Hermes had survived, she probably would have been used as a convoy escort CVE until enough purpose built CVEs were available. She was more useful in that role than just about anything else.

The only ships the British had a burning need for were convoy escorts. The rest of the RN mostly sat around in case the Italian or German surface fleets decided to sortie.

Bill

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Dili

This kind of ship trade needs to be done for any Mediterranean game that will ever be build. Either side. But in the Axis side is only submarines.

The only ships the British had a burning need for were convoy escorts. The rest of the RN mostly sat around in case the Italian or German surface fleets decided to sortie.

Bill

warspite1

Which period of the Med War are you referring to? Royal Navy carriers, battleships and cruisers were heavily involved throughout, from June 1940 onwards. Whether it was Cunningham's attempts to bring the Italian Fleet to battle, the attempts to intercept the enemy fleet, the attempts to deliver/save the British Army, or the main convoy engagements (and the engagements that resulted from these operations). I don't think the RN - Force H, the Malta Striking Force or the Mediterranean Fleet - ever had the chance of sitting around [;)]

[Dili]

There was the Italian Navy. I think they had a bit more than just submarines.

I think you didn't understand what i was trying to say.

Italian submarines were the only Regiamarina ships that went out of Mediterranean until armistice. So if one of this boats was sunk before going to Atlantic another should have take its place -there could be an allowance that Mediterranean was more important that Atlantic so a 2:1 proportion, so for 2 of those sinkings the player only have to send to Atlantic one submarine that didn't operated in Atlantic, if we want to be even more perfect we restrict it to oceanic classes.

While Allied carriers, Battlehips, cruisers, destroyers, escorts, submarines etc entered the Med and get out of it often.
That is an issue that any developer of a Mediterranean game has to solve. Since if all Royal Navy ships remain then around 1941 almost all Royal Navy is in the game inside the Med. There are no ships to go hunt the Bismarck, to North Sea and Asia.

The rest of the RN mostly sat around in case the Italian or German surface fleets decided to sortie.

There was no British fleet in the Med since attack in Alexandria in late 1941 that sunk 2 battleships in shallow water harbor until Torch (Nov42). After that they were only in convoys to Malta from Gibraltar.

That is a reason that the British had to get an old ship Centurion and desguise it as a Battleship. Photo of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Centurion_(1911) desguised as a KGV.

2nd Sirte Battle was a classic case of those times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Sirte

Or Vigourous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vigorous

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Dili

The rest of the RN mostly sat around in case the Italian or German surface fleets decided to sortie.

There was no British fleet in the Med since attack in Alexandria in late 1941 that sunk 2 battleships in shallow water harbor until Torch (Nov42). After that they were only in convoys to Malta from Gibraltar.

warspite1

There was a full year and a half of war between June 1940 and the Italian attack that took out Valiant and Queen Elizabeth!

[Dili]

Yes, and in that period the Italian fleet was often at sea.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes, and in that period the Italian fleet was often at sea.

warspite1

? Are we talking about two different things? I was answering wdolson's comment that "The rest of the RN mostly sat around in case the Italian or German surface fleets decided to sortie" as this was not the case.

...and then your response to it that "There was no British fleet in the Med since attack in Alexandria in late 1941", which seemed to ignore 18 months of intensive naval operations.

You have now answered "Yes, and in that period the Italian fleet was often at sea", but I did not dispute that - indeed my initial comment makes clear that it was the fact the RM WAS at sea, that made the RN's operations so intense.

I suspect we are talking at cross purposes [;)]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
The only ships the British had a burning need for were convoy escorts. The rest of the RN mostly sat around in case the Italian or German surface fleets decided to sortie.

Bill

warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Which period of the Med War are you referring to? Royal Navy carriers, battleships and cruisers were heavily involved throughout, from June 1940 onwards. Whether it was Cunningham's attempts to bring the Italian Fleet to battle, the attempts to intercept the enemy fleet, the attempts to deliver/save the British Army, or the main convoy engagements (and the engagements that resulted from these operations). I don't think the RN - Force H, the Malta Striking Force or the Mediterranean Fleet - ever had the chance of sitting around [;)]

I was largely thinking about the Home Fleet which spent a lot of time sitting in Scapa Flow in case the Germans sortied. But I believe the RN also spent a lot of time in port in Alexandria and Gibraltar too.

In the Med and Atlantic, the only ships that were regularly at sea and actually in regular action were convoy escorts except for the relatively rare occasion of invasion support. Most if not all ships DD and larger were sunk by air or sub.

The Pacific didn't have many surface actions, but there were more of them than in the Med.

Bill

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: wdolson
The only ships the British had a burning need for were convoy escorts. The rest of the RN mostly sat around in case the Italian or German surface fleets decided to sortie.

Bill

warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Which period of the Med War are you referring to? Royal Navy carriers, battleships and cruisers were heavily involved throughout, from June 1940 onwards. Whether it was Cunningham's attempts to bring the Italian Fleet to battle, the attempts to intercept the enemy fleet, the attempts to deliver/save the British Army, or the main convoy engagements (and the engagements that resulted from these operations). I don't think the RN - Force H, the Malta Striking Force or the Mediterranean Fleet - ever had the chance of sitting around [;)]

I was largely thinking about the Home Fleet which spent a lot of time sitting in Scapa Flow in case the Germans sortied. But I believe the RN also spent a lot of time in port in Alexandria and Gibraltar too.

In the Med and Atlantic, the only ships that were regularly at sea and actually in regular action were convoy escorts except for the relatively rare occasion of invasion support. Most if not all ships DD and larger were sunk by air or sub.

The Pacific didn't have many surface actions, but there were more of them than in the Med.

Bill

warspite1

I guess everything is relative, but I personally would not characterise the RN’s time – whether Force H or the Mediterranean Fleet – in the Med as one of being holed up in port for any length of time. You say convoy escorts, but with the centrally placed RM, the British heavy units were usually part of the escort.

Indeed the same was true – though perhaps to a lesser extent – for the Home Fleet, particularly after the Russian convoys started.

The RN was simply too stretched to enjoy the luxury of sitting in port. I won’t bother listing all the battles and engagements, but the RN were constantly at sea in the Med war – defending its own convoys, seeking out Italian convoys, trying to bring the RM to battle e.g. Calabria, Spartivento, Matapan, naval reinforcement convoys e.g. Excess, the aircraft reinforcement of Malta, troop support in North Africa etc, delivering troops to Greece, Sicily, Torch, Mainland Italy etc, trying to save the army in Greece and Crete, Battles against Vichy forces e.g. Catapult, Syria.

As to how many surface actions there were in the Pacific compared to the Med War, given the size of the respective fleets (IJN, RM, RN and USN) and the geography of the Pacific, I have no doubt there were more naval surface engagements in the Pacific.

[Dili]

I was largely thinking about the Home Fleet

Okay that explains the German fleet reference. I was bit puzzled because there wasn't a German fleet in Med. The biggest they had was a captured Greek destroyer.

trying to bring the RM to battle

Did the British refused to give battle to Italians after bombarding Genova?

I spent all my initial learning of Mediterranean war reading British books and the meme was RM didn't get out to fight. Then i started to read in more detail and count the times that Regia Marina was out to get the British and the whole meme crashed like a house of cards...
The Italian fleet in being was not by staying in the harbor it was by when fighting doing it prudently.
You can count the times that Italian fleet went out to seek battle. There were several. And certainly much more than German fleet for example.
Plus the British didn't made it much different either, when Italian rounds were near any of their ships they run away and tried to break the straddling, fights to dead only happened when one side had almost all cards - usually the British - absent that, no one committed fully.

If you are interested you can check the Battleship and Cruiser TROMs here:https://sites.google.com/site/davidijn/regiamarina2

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I was largely thinking about the Home Fleet

Okay that explains the German fleet reference. I was bit puzzled because there wasn't a German fleet in Med. The biggest they had was a captured Greek destroyer.

trying to bring the RM to battle

Did the British refused to give battle to Italians after bombarding Genova?

I spent all my initial learning of Mediterranean war reading British books and the meme was RM didn't get out to fight. Then i started to read in more detail and count the times that Regia Marina was out to get the British and the whole meme crashed like a house of cards...
The Italian fleet in being was not by staying in the harbor it was by when fighting doing it prudently.
You can count the times that Italian fleet went out to seek battle. There were several. And certainly much more than German fleet for example.
Plus the British didn't made it much different either, when Italian rounds were near any of their ships they run away and tried to break the straddling, fights to dead only happened when one side had almost all cards - usually the British - absent that, no one committed fully.

If you are interested you can check the Battleship and Cruiser TROMs here:https://sites.google.com/site/davidijn/regiamarina2

warspite1

As far as I was aware, the British were unaware of the fact that Iachino had sailed.

I think the difference was leadership. The Second Battle of Sirte is probably the most extreme example.

O'Hara makes the case for the RM. Whilst has argument has some merit, the fact is, with its central position, the RM should have done MUCH better against the RN.

[wdolson]

I guess my knowledge of the Med naval campaign is less than complete. Most of my reading has been more on the air side of things which tends to paint the picture that operating in the Med carried a lot of risk from air attack. I can't find any good statistics at the moment, but while I have read about some small ship surface actions such as S-boats, MTBs, and other small craft, I have the impression that engagements of larger ships was rare.

There are few places in the Med where you aren't in range of land based air from one side or the other. In some places both sides could reach you. That made air threat a constant issue whenever surface ships sortied any distance from their home bases. The RAF had Beauforts based at Malta for a while which put all the water in a 300 mile radius at risk of air attack. From what statistics I can find (which don't break down losses by attack type and ship type together), the most common cause of ship loss in the Med was air attack.

I do admit it is not an area I have studied in depth though.

Bill

[Dili]

The British admiral could have stayed around if he wanted to have a chance.

RM should have done MUCH better against the RN.

I have no disagreements over that with just a small caveat that is difficult to access the impact of Ultra.

I guess my knowledge of the Med naval campaign is less than complete. Most of my reading has been more on the air side of things which tends to paint the picture that operating in the Med carried a lot of risk from air attack.

That is correct.
But losses were heavy also. For example the No.107 sqn lost 24 of 26 crews in 3 months based in Malta.
US medium bombers after an initial period doing low level bombing abandoned it since every ship or boat was full of AA.

I have the impression that engagements of larger ships was rare.

That depends on what "rare" means. And could have been more with another God roll dice.