As part of an on-going discussion of the efficacy of smaller units
(DDs, FFs) at a Wall of Battle meeting, I am searching for historical
antecedents to this type of action.
I assume that in historical times (WWI, WW2, modern, other times), the Line of
Battle has fought with smaller vessels. I am interested in any information
regarding these events, such as dates, places, and brief recountings of the
events. Especially the meeting of two main battle lines with the smaller
vessels playing any kind of a noteworthy role other than dying under the
cruiser or BBs guns....
Specifically, I'm attempting to consider these things:
1) Should one send the small ships away when two walls meet? That is, they
exist for use outside these situations and are vulnerable and dangerous enough
to draw fire that destroys them consistently so therefore their inclusion is
pointless in terms of the resources that get destroyed when they are wiped out
by the bigger vessels. That
doesn't mean you would not build them - they still exist for convoy
escort, attacking wounded and vulnerable ships, etc. But it does mean they
would not stand in front of or with the WoB. No point in getting them killed
stupidly.
2) What reasons would one have for having these smaller ships present at a big
FT battle (and keeping them)? My current working assumption has it that
A) used as fast attack squadrons with the right armaments (SML, SMR, MT
missile, PT), they can extract a decent return for any risk and disengage if
injured and not destroyed. If not so armed, they really might want to think
twice about being in weapons range of the enemy while outside their own
weapons
envelope - a common scenario when beam-2 armed escorts cling to
their
beam-3 or beam-4 capitals.
(Here is a case where I wonder if historical destroyers assisted their larger
brethren in attacking
the enemy LoB with torpedos - but I don't know of many cases -
so if anyone does, it might help address this point)
B) manufacture of such vessels is easier and requires smaller
shipyards so these are produced not instead-of
larger ships but in-addition-to and therefore having them
present at a historical or campaign battle (not an
artificial pick-your-points-even-point-value battle) is the
difference between having extra firepower or not having it since you can't
just trade the 50 DDs for the 10 DNs (or whatever the exact ratio is) because
your shipyards couldn't build all SDNs. But you keep them with your WoB due to
the extra FP and the
light-cavalry like ability to harry the flanks and to attack the
wounded and pursue the fleeing. Of course, if playing just a straight points
value battle, it seems these might be worth leaving behind. This is perhaps
the difference between a one-off game with no context, and a
game within a historical or campaign framework.
So if anyone has any historical anecdotes or references to support or
disprove either viewpoint (bring the popcorn/send it away), I'd be
most interested to hear it. And of course, feedback, argument, discourse and
such are welcome as well.
> I assume that in historical times (WWI, WW2, modern, other times), >the
> Line of Battle has fought with smaller vessels. I am interested >in any
> information regarding these events, such as dates, places, >and brief
But that's the thing though- main battle fleets rarely EVER engage each
other. The simple reason is that massive capital ships are very expensive and
rather rare. Committing your main battle fleet (like the British Home fleets)
is taking a major risk. Winston Churchill once remarked (during WWI) that the
British Home fleet commander was the one man who could loose the whole war in
one afternoon.
Even in the Pacific, the major fleets didn't clash until things were very
desperate (Midway, Coral Sea, etc)... The main fleets just stuck around bases
and supported invasion force (and only occasionally defended against major
invasions). For the most part, naval battles (at least in WWII) were fought by
'popcorn'. It's because these ships were expendable.
So the real question should be, when do CAPITAL ships really see action
;)
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
[MUNCH]
> So if anyone has any historical anecdotes or references to support or
Actually, I'm not sure naval history is a good analogy in this case. One of
the major reasons NOT to bring your escorts in was that
their weaponry couldn't hurt battleships/battlecruisers. 3"/5" rapid
fire cannon just doesn't cut it against 16" of armour belt. (Ignoring 'special
purpose' weapons like torpedoes.)
However, the FB Class-1 bat can hurt even the largest SDN. There's
still the range difference to worry about between a Class-1 and a
Class-3, but you know there's a chance to score significant damage with
a whole bunch of Class-1's, quite unlike the almost guaranteed
bounces you'll get versus the armour belt. That's what makes swarm tactics so
dangerous in FT.
Just some ideas.
J.
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Jerry Han wrote:
> Actually, I'm not sure naval history is a good analogy in this
A whole bunch of 5"-38's would mission kill a battle ship pretty quick
if the ships were able to not get damaged.
Why do you think the PT boats bothered with.50 cals and 20mm when they went
after bigger stuff like DD's and CH's? You will have all sorts of folks
standing out in the open sighting and directing the guns. Kill those, and it
will make it harder for the big guy to hurt the little guys. The guns don't
aim them selves.
On the North Caroline for example
There were Directors for the Main Guns, Directors for the 5"/38s and
Directors for the 40mm's that were out in the open. All but the Directors for
the main guns were out in the open and in clear view. (the secondary
directors and tertiary directors also directed the spot lights and vice versa)
The main directors were armored like noones business but the actual radar
emitters were pretty soft. No way to harden something like that.
Damaging all the directors left the Primary and secondary armament using
its optical hardware, not easy to use.
Why is it that space battles are always thought of in terms of naval action
and not air force action? (Including me) Are we all firmly entombed inside a
box that has been built by popular Sci Fi? Heck if anything the Air Force is
the organizatuion that has it's hands buried firmly within the aerospace realm
and no doubt with all the political squabbles for control that will arise when
the armed services go to space for real, they may have an upper hand in
ensuring that they are controlling things.
Just curious.
Also I agree with Tom. What differnce does it make if there is a wet navy
precedent or not to smaller units in major actions? (I know it's interesting)
There have been plenty of battles fought in FT by everyone here. Since that's
the medium we use to decide the contest I would accept that experience along
those lines before naval action experience.
And with that said, Kr'rt and I fought a 100+ ship major fleet battle
(took all day), and IMO it was the smaller units that were absolutely vital in
that action since the big units pretty much just stayed ethir and slugged it
out with each other for the whole battle, the DDs, fighters and whatnot were
eth ones that go in (virtually ignored by teh big ships who were fixated on
eachotehr) and knifed everyone in the back with missles and Torps.
> Jerry Han wrote:
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
Two! Two! Two answers in one!! (8-)
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> folks standing out in the open sighting and directing the guns. Kill
It's not the same between a DD/CL fighting a PT boat, and a DD trying
to hurt a BB with guns. The.50s and the 20mm would hurt the exposed areas of
DDs and CLs, because their armour protection wasn't comprehensive. But a BB
will shrug off the damage from a DD 5", mission kill idea aside...
> There were Directors for the Main Guns, Directors for the 5"/38s and
Granted. However, none of these affected the core integrity of the ship.
Excepting an extremely lucky hit, a ship's core ability to find a target,
fight, and survive, would remain intact. Her watertight integrity would not be
seriously challenged. A squadron of naval destroyers could not challenge a
battleship with guns, and win.
In FT, that's not true. A squadron of destroyers with Class 1 bats, if they
can get into range, can seriously damage a BB, a DN, or a SDN. It's because
the balance between armour and weaponry is different in FT; in Naval combat,
armour is protective, and does not suffer damage while defending the ship. In
FT, screens reduce but do not stop damage, and armour is ablative; eventually,
you can get through.
> Los wrote:
Several reasons in my mind why the Air Force isn't used as a precedent:
1) Unit size; the largest Air Force combat vehicles hold approximately
10 - 15 crew, while naval vessels hold hundreds. Even now, a picture
of an air force is a bunch of a one or two man fighters.
2) Basing: Naval units can patrol a heck of a lot longer than Air Force units.
3) History and Romance: Naval history appears to be more adaptable then the
events of Air Force history. While you can draw analogies (Sea Control versus
Air Supremacy), nations have been fighting for Sea Control a hell of a lot
longer then they've been fighting for Air Supremacy.
> Also I agree with Tom. What differnce does it make if there is a wet
Actually, I think you're agreeing with me. (8-)
J.
> -----Original Message-----
<some stuff snipped>
> In FT, that's not true. A squadron of destroyers with Class
One way to change this might be to rate armor against weapons.
i.e. Class 1 armor prevents all damage by Class 1 beams, acts normally vs
higher class beams. Class 2, etc...
higher classes of armor cost more (mass and points). One would also have to
figure out how this would effect damage by pulse torps, SLMs, etc... As I
write this I have visions of an almost invulnerable DD with 1 point of Class 4
armor. If it was costed correctly, that might be all he could carry, if that.
Just an untested thought,
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
In just about the last time an IJN major surface unit sortied, on 15 May 1945
A group of 2000t british destroyers hunted and killed a Japanese Heavy cruiser
in a classic action in the Malacca straits. More details after I look them up.
Taffy 3 - in the action off Samar (Leyte Gulf Oct 1944), there was a
screw-up and a large Japanese Battleforce, consisting of Capital Ships
and their escorts, ran in to the invasion cover force of "Jeep" carriers,
destroyers and frigates. The carriers ran at best speed (not fast) while the
"small boys" ferociously attacked the battleline, though heavily outnumbered
even by the Japanese small stuff. The Japanese withdrew after doing relatively
little damage, as they couldn't believe the USN small vessels were attacking
without support.
See On-line book about this:
http://www.escortcarriers.org/bosamar/bosintro.html
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:25:48 -0700, Nathan Pettigrew writes:
> eventually, you can get through.
As I
> write this I have visions of an almost invulnerable DD with 1 point of
Why not do something like:
Class 1 armor stops the first point of damage from any attack for free (i.e.
no boxes lost). Would require people to roll each weapon seperately though
(i.e. these 3 dice are a class 3, these 2 are a class 2, etc).
This would have to be VERY expensive though.
Average Damages at short range. Assumes screens don't degrade damage
on re-rolls;
no screen 1 screen 2 screen 1 armor 2 armor
Class-1 0.8 0.64 0.47 0.299 0.133
Class-2 1.6 1.28 0.94 0.85 0.432
Class-3 2.4 1.92 1.41 1.525 0.898
Ptorp 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.67 1.97
So, even armor 1 (in this system) would be much more effective than screens.