Missing Naval Unit: Destroyer

[Liam]

Why no Destroyers? I hope that I am wrong when I look at the pre-Game release images. I mean these SC Lovers who say that it's too tactical a unit to add and they don't argue Divebombers or V-1 V-2 Rockets or even Jets. During WW2 Rockets and Jets were pretty much Rare and because the technology was still expensive and only researched by a few Majors of which few every employed them. V-1s and V2s never played a Major role in the outcome of the war and never would have no matter what. They're impossible to aim, they're far worse than SCUD Missiles of OP Desert Storm which were lacking precision to hit anything. So why bother to include them when something like a Destoyer was a staple unit that help end the Battle of the Atlantic, produced in massive # and is not just a support ship. They were what stopped U-Boats!! You have U-Boats but not Destroyers? A Majority of US/UK Convoys used them and not Battleships or Cruisers the Mainline Heavy Gunned Ships of the Majors. Those ships were reserved for special uses unless of course SC2 as in SC is a breakaway from Naval and more a focus on Air Warfare which was extremely Ahistorical. Air Was still not a decisive Weapon and never proved to be in on the Major Fronts during WW2. It was proven that Strategic Bombing did not Cripple German War Machine, in fact German War Production increased in the Major Bombing Years. The RAF FireBombing was only a Terror Weapon that yes made many homeless people but did not break Germany's Back.

[Retributar]

I Concur Liam

[Night]

I would Agree but for only one reason, it is already extremely easy to stop U-boats without destroyers in-game. In SC1 the "battle of the atlantic" was a joke.

Fundemental's have to be changed to make destroyers more useful and U-boats harder to stop so that you would have a reason for destroyers.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

During WW2 Rockets and Jets were pretty much Rare and because the technology was still expensive and only researched by a few Majors of which few every employed them. V-1s and V2s never played a Major role in the outcome of the war and never would have no matter what.

I must disagree about the rockets-part.

after/at stalingrad rockets were used very often by both the red army and the Germans.

it's true that the US/UK rarely used them but it is very wrong to say that the V1 and the V2 didn't influence the war and never would have.

In 1944 the allies bombed a city(one of the many)and Hitler ordered to strike back at London with V2's.

From this moment on Churchill was constantly afraid of represailles and the UK has admitted that the V1 and the V2 probably slowed down the allied victory in europe for months.They didn't exactly win the war but at that point not even an A-bomb could win it for the Germans.

[Lars]

It's all an abstraction you know.

Just substitute "Destroyer" for "Cruiser" and you'll be fine...

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Battleship units would need a much lower attack

and detect % against subs (tho defense-i.e. when

attacked themselves-should be high). BBs

(understanding that a "BB" unit actually consists

of 1-2 battlewagons plus several DDs, maybe even

a CL/CA or two) weren't used much to police

convoy lanes against U-boats (tho they were used

that way when German surface raiders were out

there). That's one reason why U-boats tended to

not live very long in SC1...

"Cruiser" units, OTOH, should serve well as sub

hunter-killer units. However, reading the book

Black May (about the convoy battles c. 1943), it

is clear that airpower was the main reason why

the tide turned so viciously against the U-boats...

[Raven25]

Liam, while I do also think that Destroyers should be available, I must say that what you stated is mere opinion, and at that is VERY far from the truth.

Air superiority played a majorrole in WWII. If either Axis or Allies had air superiority than they could easily disrupt supply lines, intercept air transports, destroy tank columns, strafe concentrations of troops, and even bomb headquarters (like when Axis bombers bombed Patton's HQ in Africa). Both the Axis and the Allies faught very hard to take and maintain air superiority. If the Allies hadn't had air superiority for Operation Overlord, than Germany would've been able to easily strike back with their reserve tank units (but they were destroyed each time the tanks mobilized on roads, which were choke points, or fields, which were open areas and supsceptible to aircraft.

As for the V1 and V2 rockets, you are again mistaken. The V1 was experimental, and paved the way for the V2. While the V2 may not have seemed a ferocious weapon, it was infact the ability to "reach out and touch someone" without having to risk men or machines. And I might add that the V2 probably would've been equiped with an atomic warhead had it not been for the brave efforts of commando teams to destroy "heavy water" stockpiles and manufacturing equipment. Hitler never was able to use, or complete, his atomic weapons. Imagine if the Allies were unsuccessful in hindering the atomic developments, and Germany would've been able to easily launch V2 rockets at London and do MUCH MUCH more damage. These rockets would've played a major role in the outcome of the war had they been loaded with their intended warheads.

[Red Fleet]

I always understood the Naval units not as one ship but as a Task Force.

But I certainly agree that the BB groups should have much lower attack values against U-Boats. It would be nice if the naval units would have naval and strategic attack/defense values AND one extra against subs. That would make Cruiser Task Forces more important.

Or think about Hunter Groups...

[Lars]

Umm, Raven, the V-1 and V-2 were two totally different technologies designed concurrently. The V-2 was far more "experimental" than the V-1 but not in any way a derivative design of the V-1.

Also, the Germans were never close to a atomic bomb so the V-2 was not designed with that in mind. Their best scientists weren't even sure it was possible. Even when they heard the announcement of the bombing of Japan while sitting in a prison camp in England they thought it was a hoax. Took them a couple of days to accept it as the truth.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I agree with the fact that the V2's especially played a role in the war and that if the Germans would have had the chance to further develop them(the V3, a long-distance cannon, was found ,unused, by the allies in 1945) they would have played an even bigger part in the war.

But I don't think they would have been equipped with warheads though, German scientists weren't allowed to use 'Jewish science'(so Einstein was out of the question) so in 'their' science the atomic bomb indeed didn't exist.

[Retributar]

Roosevelt45...the Germans had the technology for a dirty-bomb...and could also have had the Atom-Bomb without Einsteins help...

BUT!!!... Scaled back the progect as it seemed it would not be necessary in view of how the war was going for them at the time. They felt that those resources could be better used elsewhere.

This is why also Jet-Technology was left in the doldrums as well...they felt that the war would be over before anything like Jets would become necessary.

Now...my assertions are based on what im sure i can remember of these situations...if necessary i can find them on the internet to prove these points!.

[Lars]

A fair enough summation, Retributar.

As I recall, they were planning on 1948 for their first working atomic pile.

But I'm not sure they could have made a dirty bomb. Or more to the point, why bother when you have all that nerve gas laying around?

[Retributar]

Well Lars i can't dispute your answer!.

I will however say that if sufficient resources were allocated to this project early enough in the game...i think they could have pulled it off.

For now i will post this information, then add to it as i have the time and can find it!.

-------------------

http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/Bomb.htm

-------------------

Chit-Chat Discussion at a chat-site...'Third Reich Forum'.

http://www.thirdreich.net/German_A_Bomb.html

Main Page: http://www.thirdreich.net/index.html

In 1941 or 1942 the Nazis decided that they would win the war and no new super weapons were to be developed. The nuclear program was shifted from bombs to powerplants (of which 2 were operational by early 1945).

If the nazi's would have invested in bomb development instead of plant development from 1941 on, they might have had one or two bombs instead of plants in early 1945???.

Regardless of whether how one evaluates Heisenberg's inner thoughts and motivations on the subject, one thing can be defintely asserted - the Germans were not pursuing the subject very hard. Without much larger allocation of resources to the project, a German atomic bomb would never have come to fruition.

Funding it needed cuts would have had to be made that would have been felt at the front lines. Could Germany risk it ?

They had plenty of uranium, a few thousand tons of refined uranium oxide was on hand (more than the entire Manhattan Project consumed). The Vemork heavy water plant is often discussed, since it was Germany's only source during the war. But *why* was this their only source. Even at maximum output it was incapable of supplying D2O for more than one laboratory reactor. It was entirely inadequate for even a small weapons project.

Put yourself in Germany's shoes. An atomic bomb is a long range thing. It is something you plan and research and spend enormous sums of money on today in the hopes of having one 2-3 years later.

That assumes a long war of economic

attrition, precisely the kind of war Germany knew it could never win atom bomb or no atom bomb and precisely the kind of war the Allies knew they were going to fight.

A nation that chose not to build heavy bombers for the future because it needed ground support planes now would not have chosen to invest the

enormous sums needed for a Manhattan Projest as opposed to having tanks and planes right now.

What if the project was a bust ? Could Germany have afforded an unsuccessful Manhattan Project ? What Germany scientist could have afforded the cost of failure in a police state ? After all no one knew for certain whether the

bomb could actually be built.

[ June 28, 2004, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Retributar]

Turning The Tide Against The U-Boats!.

As far as Submarines being more effective...i don't see how that can happen!.

The Allies used Radar/Sonar... and could see where the German Subs were in or on the water...the Sub's couldn't hide...and as well...the Americans were turning out large numbers of JEEP Escort Carriers.

These were small carriers designed at first to protect convoys crossing the Atlantic!.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-escrt.html

In the Atlantic, escort carriers originally stayed close to the convoys they were protecting. Over time, tactics evolved that enabled the Jeep carriers and their destroyer escorts to become independent "hunter-killer" groups. They could attack concentrations of U-boats at will and were no longer required to provide constant umbrella coverage for a convoy. This tactic was further refined by having the escort carrier groups concentrate their efforts in areas where U-boats met their supply submarines ("milch cows").

This operational phase was so successful that three Jeeps — USS Core (CVE 13), USS Card (CVE 11) and USS Bogue (CVE 9)

— and their escorting destroyers sank a total of 16 U-boats and 8 milch cows in a period of 98 days. During this time, U-boats sank only one merchantman and shot down only three planes from the escort carriers. This loss of submarines, particularly the milch cows, was a severe blow to the German Navy. With diminished capability for refueling U-boats at sea, and with no friendly bases in the area, Admiral Karl Doenitz, commander of the German U-boat fleet, was forced to withdraw his remaining supply submarines and cancel all U-boat operations in the central Atlantic.

[Liam]

Yes! See all these good points, as far as smaller Ships, Cruisers/Escort Carriers/Smaller Destroyer type ships to escort Convoys. Do you think you could afford the Prince of Wales for every US to UK Convoy? I think not! I say that most Heavy Cruisers of WW2 weren't used for Convoys, that's why I say use Destroyers. An Intermediate cheap unit that like a corps fits.

As far as V1-V2s effecting Months of the outcome of the War, I'm laughing. My Family lived in East Anglia, my GrandPa Went into House that a Buzzbomb had hit and it never went off to get his Wallet. It was a great terror weapon and Peedmunde deflected enough resources out of something that could actually have prolonged the War like Tanks/Fighters/Staple Infantry Equipment. Germany had fuel shortages, so launching thousands of V-Rockets definitely help the Ultimate Demise. I'd like any of you to show me a figure that shows that those Rockets did anything more than kill Civilians. I'll bet less than a few hundred actual Combatants Died from the use and MANY more German Technicians died<who're high valued> being bombed at the building and launching sites who could've been used to construct 100-200-300-400-500 more King Tigers that may have made the difference with the extra fuel at the Battle of the Bulge. The Rockets used at Stalingrad, the Tactical Type were not classified as V1s or V2s and were what you'd call Artillery. Yes, extremely effective, noisy, a morale breaker... But! Not what I meant in the discussion thread and not to be mistaken with Flying Bombs. That COULD never be equiped with A-BOMBs in WW2 era. Come on, it took us how long to make a flying Nuke without a Bomber to Carry it? We had much better technology than the Germans and they were years behind in their Atomic research.

AirPower in Europe was Ify... Ever Watch Band Of Brother, see the obvious lack of Air Cover? Europe is bad weather a lot, not like SC, where every day is a Clear July Day in Kansas. Most of those Bombs we dropped didn't hit their target. It was only the fact we had sooooooooo many of them that they did effect the War. They did not however effect the War in the way some feel. I've read the proffessionals and I'll find their quote and books if you'd like. The old argument that AirPower alone could Win is not true. That's what WW2 Showed us. I have read the productions figures, Strategic Bombing didn't work. Air Power over the Sea was different.

The Germans adapted to the Bombing. Norden was the best Bombsight and it wasn't that great. Germans manfactored parts all over a city so that if you bombed one spot, you didn't cripple the entire production of a Unit. A Engine in place, Wings in another, Fuselages in another. The German public did wonders in replacing what damage was done. They were very industrious, and the bombing furthered their resolve to fight on and harder and more fanatically as it did with Britian during BoB. Only now, in modern times with all the Billions spent on War can we make Airpower Precision weapon that can utterly decimate an enemy. Dirty Bombs would've made the Americans HATE Germany, talk about a rebuilding Plan? I doubt it, we'd of made them pay triple instead of the Marshal Plan

[ June 28, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Liam]

Final point:

Cruisers cost around 500 MPP. That's too expensive to use in a MultiRole, I'd never buy one. Noone ever buys them in SC, why bother. Decrease the cost and call them something different, more accurate. the Mainline German Cruisers were more like Battleships anyways, considering some of the British Battleships were outdated and didn't match the German Cruisers.

3-4 Destroyers roaming a region probing for Corps would stop a lot of unneccessary BS that little E-boats and other things would've taken care of. i.e. the massive Red Army Corp landings in Denmark and Sweden. The Massive Corp Drops that Germany or Italy does on Egypt-USA-or other locations. Something that hits subs hard and comes in Large Numbers... and can be used as a Raider as well, instead of a U-Boat. Much of German Shipping was crippled by Destroyers early on, cause The Allies had so many

[Retributar]

I Concur again Liam... ...and i dont say that lightly!.

Offhand without actual figures...i believe it cost the Germans 3 V-2 slave laborers lives for every life that the V-2 Rocket weapons claimed!.

The only time im convinced that the Rocket programme would have amounted to anything really useful is if and when they would have had the V-3 operational with a Dirty-Bomb or an A-Bomb and be able to hit New-York-City or Chicago!. Then...the Americans would have to seriously look at suing for peace!.

[Liam]

Retributor:

By then, the Manhattan Project would've produced how many A-Bombs? It would've not been possible for Germany to stop the USA without having thought ahead in their war Planning. We could've built Dirty Bombs as well, Germany is one small target in comparison with the MASSIVE USA. We could move our People and Industry as the Russians did into the Interior where perhaps a Dirty Bomb couldn't reach. While Germany a Nation no bigger than a few American States would've been a wasteland...

The worst target for the Allies would've been poor Britian, so small and Population centers around cities Primarily... That would've hurt, but in retaliation the Russian #s alone by late '44 and into '45 would've killed off the entire German Nation by themselves without the USA or UK helping.

Dirty Bombs weren't the answer, unless they were owned solely by 1 Power, and could be employed in Massive #s and you also had the Land forces to protect your Other Massive Fronts. Germany had Thousands of Miles Fronts, the USA was but 1 Contributor to their demise. V-3s are a What If Weapon, and even if you Nuked Millions of Ruskies, no saying that would've stopped them, it didn't when it was 20-35 Million Dead.

[Blashy]

Ok for the sub discussion I'll clear this up.

I was a submariner and the only reason they won in the Atlantic was airplanes. Even at the end of the war, heck even TODAY. If a sub does not want to be found it will NOT be found, today they just go deeper and the layers in the ocean block everything EASILY.

Back then they just needed to be underwater, sonars were **** when a sub ran silent.

So ships did not find boats, planes did.

Oh and the best hunters in terms of ships in WW2, not destroyers... corvettes, good old canadian corvettes were the best sub killers... when they found them.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Retributar,

Of course German scientists would have been able to create an A-bomb but not with Hitler proclaiming 'his, only correct, science' all the time and surly not in 1944/45 where they didn't even have enough recources for the battle of the Bulge anymore.

I read an interresting book about this subject:

Nazi Science: Myth, Truth, and the German Atomic Bomb

[Liam]

Blashy,

U-Boats had batteries they required to run above water most of the time. Why aircraft could see them so well.Aircraft is a good way to hunt U-Boats especially if launched by Sea for range. Modern Day Submarines as you say, are Uber... but they're Nuclear now.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

At the start of the War UK had 184 Destroyers and 45 escort ships. What was the primary role, supportive

Corvettes, Frigates could be classified same as Destroyers to simplify. escort Carriers could be classified uniquely.

but the 66 Cruisers at this juncture..mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties. Including cruiser-minelayers, 23 new ones have been laid down.

[Liam]

Ahhh, I know this is sort of like a run on sentence but I thought I should add another very good point. When any Good SCer plans a Naval Armada, or any arrangement of Vessels, it wouldn't be complete without Corps Transport Blockers and Recon Vessels now would it? I know that the BEST SCers use this technique and if you don't offer a fair cost Boat I will and many other will not stop!

Why expend a 500-700MPP Ship when you can throw at 125MPP ship at them? Use a Minor and it's really even of lesser value. You see it takes 2 whacks usually for a Real MainLine ship to kill a transport no matter what it is, and can take more Air Hits to do the same and they go in places often people are afraid to send Carriers. They can block you in, they can cut you off, they can even inflict damage... Transport Corps is as valuable as subs in most of my games where there is Major Naval Warfare and Most of the time, cause I have a Fleet with them, I can pull them back before they're sunk and Hammer you're fleet to the bottom.

I have seen entire Naval engagements won this way in SC and anyone would like a demonstration You're welcome to one

To Finalize:

This isn't just about a Unit, it's about a Tactical Missing Link

[SeaMonkey]

Am in agreement with Liam. How about a new SC naval unit, "Naval Escorts"? Cost? 325 MPP beginning level, same as Tank Group. Give it a NA value that has some range to represent the escort carriers and some increased spotting since we will have a larger Atlantic.

[Retributar]

Ohh about the Manhatten project...the US had only enough material to build those two bombs that dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima...for actual combat use.

Then they would have no more...not for a while...how long i dont know. I think the materials were coming from Uranium City in the Yukon in Canada or someplace like that.

[Liam]

SeaMonkey:

I think that is a bit expensive and I wouldn't mind it, don't get me wrong but we're stuck here. If Hubert is reading our topic and considering adding another unit or offering the ability to design units in the Editor it would be different. I'm looking for a lowcost Raider/Recon/Space Filler. A small TP Boat, an E-Boat, a Destroyer, a Corvette, an escort Carrier even.. Yes but the capibilities of the Escort Carrier make it quite powerful and it's true all the above ships usually ran in a taskforce. But a Destroyer type unit with all those capabilities would be far too uber and expensive. You need to downgrade the unit somewhat or people will buy no Cruisers/Battleships and only those units. BUT give it bonuses vs Subs for Game Balance IMO

More along the lines of a 200 MPP Destroyer, mobile, fast, Low Fire Power, good raider/match for a sub and a TOTAL Transport killer.

If we had an editor I'd add in the Escort Carriers just for the Glorious Joy of more Combat. All sort of confusing, I know but, I think if you look at a Screenie and you see 5-6 Transports Blocking Waters. You see 15-20 Amphibious Units off UK, and think to yourself a moment what is missing, I feel there is something don't you? Air alone can't kill, The UK is missing the Historical/Neccessary ships to defend itself, The Germans likewise... They need air superiority during Battle of Britian to kill all the little nuisances swimming around the Channel and in SC Air Power during BOB is for killing Corps/Armies not for getting the fleet across in one piece which can easily be done