Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 3 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said: You think this was just about budgetary constraints and not about doctrine? It's all interrelated. You can't talk carrier doctrine if your professionals are dedicated to a battleship centric force. The Fleet Air Arm recognized this, but could not convince the Admiralty or the RAF to properly pay for flying officers to receive prestigious and profitable enough positions in the fleet to retain them. Most air officers went to the RAF, because that service setup the promotion progression to favor those who abandoned the navy. The navy, denied the ability to control Fleet Air Arm officers careers...balked at paying money to invest in officers who were just going to jump to the RAF anyway. Then, when doctrine discussions came around, no one with flying experience was senior enough to have input. The interwar politics of naval construction and management is fascinating stuff. 2 hours ago, Asym said: Yes, and a way out of doctrine.... It wasn't the engineering to create a Carrier. Nor, the building capabilities. Nor even, the planes or manning.... England is not a strategic partner. Costs to maintain a "strategic power projection" capability simply could not be met. They relied on the US for that. We spent the money and they enjoyed the coverage. And, here we are today..... Who has the Carrier task forces? Strategic Counties..... And no, jump jet mini carriers are not Power Projection platforms. Carrier groups are large organization of ships that are always "out there ! Subs are another situation. And, so it goes with all things NATO...... My comments were about the period 1919-1940. Your comments cover another interesting period when Britain was pivoting from world power to supporting power. Subs were pivotal in 1982 to keep the Argentine navy away from the invasion fleet. But the air cover provided by the two carriers was necessary to keep the Argentine air force from punishing the landings too heavily. In the end, there is not infinite resources...and the choices made to economize will have impacts beyond just a lack of hardware assets on the battlefield. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 On 6/25/2024 at 8:40 AM, Asym said: "Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" (Kelly's Hero's, 1970) 21 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: 🙂👍 RIP Donald Sutherland... Can you believe he never got an Academy Award for any of his roles... They did give him a lifetime one eventually but out of all the great parts he played over the years they just dropped the ball on him. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: It's all interrelated. You can't talk carrier doctrine if your professionals are dedicated to a battleship centric force. The Fleet Air Arm recognized this, but could not convince the Admiralty or the RAF to properly pay for flying officers to receive prestigious and profitable enough positions in the fleet to retain them. Most air officers went to the RAF, because that service setup the promotion progression to favor those who abandoned the navy. The navy, denied the ability to control Fleet Air Arm officers careers...balked at paying money to invest in officers who were just going to jump to the RAF anyway. Then, when doctrine discussions came around, no one with flying experience was senior enough to have input. The interwar politics of naval construction and management is fascinating stuff. My comments were about the period 1919-1940. Your comments cover another interesting period when Britain was pivoting from world power to supporting power. Subs were pivotal in 1982 to keep the Argentine navy away from the invasion fleet. But the air cover provided by the two carriers was necessary to keep the Argentine air force from punishing the landings too heavily. In the end, there is not infinite resources...and the choices made to economize will have impacts beyond just a lack of hardware assets on the battlefield. And also about knowing who your enemy is. Interestingly, in the 1920s the US considered the Royal Navy more of an adversary than an ally. Yes, I never looked into these matters very closely, but I am aware of some of the things you mentioned, like the pilots deciding to join the RAF and grow something that was called a 'disgusting mustache'. The RAF, of course, valued the pilots and their skills unlike the RN. The Royal Navy forced them to wear a brass letter 'A' encircled by a wreath on their sleeves, an immediate focal point and a specialization badge that told everyone that the person in question knew nothing about seamanship, or at least until the 'A' fell of leaving just the empty wreath. I wasn't actually referring to any particular period, just the progression in thinking over time. If the pattern holds, we will end up in a situation where either carriers or subs, or potentially both, will suddenly become obsolete and someone's going to get caught with their pants down when that happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 35 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: RIP Donald Sutherland... Can you believe he never got an Academy Award for any of his roles... They did give him a lifetime one eventually but out of all the great parts he played over the years they just dropped the ball on him. Being immortalized by Girls und Panzer wasn't half-bad, though. 🙂 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCGrog Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 On 6/25/2024 at 6:04 AM, Ensign Cthulhu said: These idiots who reported you should be booted from the game. If you'd killed me with a through-the-mountain-pass shot like that, you'd have got a "Worthy Opponent" comp and chat would probably have gone like this. OW, F%%%! DAMN Nice shot. Yup me too. I would have complimented and said nice shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCGrog Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 On 6/24/2024 at 9:36 PM, SoshiSone said: I was reported today. I take it as compliment. And I fully understand the angst of the reds that did so. All's good. No harm. The reds had the game won. It was four on two and they had caps and points. Two of their ships were in a clan division. A Wisconsin and Sicilia. As the game wound down, I was able to kill the Sicilia through breaks in a terrain mass...sort of like kicking a field goal. Had to lead him through the break...and was successful. From the reds perspective, this might seem like a hack; killed with a volley through a mountain. I understand. Then I was engaged with the Wisconsin in a mid range fight. He wasn't full broadside as the engagement began, but it was close enough and I was able to cit him and eventually win the fight. Again, I can understand the angst of getting cit'd in what turned out to be an even angled fight. Another feather in the perception-of-hacking hat. In the meantime, our friendly DD took out the Bungo, getting us to two on one. But it didn't end there. Reds still had it won. After our DD cap'd we were even on caps but with a points deficit. The Castillo probably had a point where it could run and win, but appears to have waited too long. When it did finally make the decision it had a 50/50 chance of picking the clear direction (the one I wasn't pushing on). It picked wrong. But even then, if it could but survive a salvo, it could probably still outrun me in stealth. I fired the front six and got a cit plus change. I got the rear three on a lead shot just before he disappeared...connected...killed...and we won. Looking at this last bit from the red perspective, this just solidified whatever hacker bias was already in motion. Cit'd the cruiser on one shot and then killed it in stealth FTW. So yeah, looking at this from the other side, I'd be totally pissed even if I didn't think hacker. A game that was obviously winnable was lost. And as you can see the end game events that led to that loss, I don't have any bad feelings at getting reported. Salute! Oh, and let's not forget the REAL hero in this battle. Our DD. He carried the team. I just had to avoid screwing things up and do my part in the end. Nice win Soshi. I always enjoy your battle reports. Nice writing. Was a lot of fun to read. 👍 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand_Max Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 On 6/26/2024 at 3:06 PM, Wolfswetpaws said: An interesting sentiment. 🙂 Though, the names of the Indianapolis and the Taiho come to mind. Granted, those operated during WW-II, not WW-I. First I've heard of the Kalamity class. So, now I've got a bit of light-reading to do, in order to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks. Kalamity class is a nickname for British K-class fleet submarines. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 1 hour ago, Ferdinand_Max said: Kalamity class is a nickname for British K-class fleet submarines. I found that out during my research yesterday, to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now