Prev: Re: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval Next: [sfconsim-l] Re: abstract movement system: HG/TCS

Re: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; convoy raids

From: Michael Llaneza <maserati@f...>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:48:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; convoy raids

At 11:44 AM -0500 9/17/99, devans@uneb.edu wrote:
>***
>Yes, but there exists no way for escort vessels to provide some measure
of
>beam defense for their charges.
>***
>
>Needle beams? Actually, using navy analogy, the only big gun protection
is to keep the gun carriers from closing with the convoy.

>I'm afraid I'm having trouble getting excited with the topic; in all
>the games I've played, I've assumed that we were either interdicting
>a strike against either an emplacement, against a convoy, or a scouting
>group returning to the main fleet meeting opposition. Usually assumed
>you had to exit the other side, usually.
>

Absolutely, if the raiders get into beam range of the convoy, then 
the escort has already failed it's primary mission and should now 
just try to make it expensive. Of course, the best examples from 
history of defending a convoy from surface raiders would be the 
Arctic convoys of WWII.

I've been studying that campaign, and I still can't figure out what 
the RN thought it's doctrine was (beyond keeping BBs and CVs well 
outside of land based aviation). Usually they kept destroyers iwth 
the convoy, cruisers nearby (2-3 hours) and a pair of battleships 
(4-6 hours away). That's reasonable, but the heavy escorts were all 
deployed away from the line of approach of the expected raiders. I 
assume they were hoping to catch the Tirpitz with a pair of KGVs plus 
cruisers. Either that or they were hoping to cow the Kriegsmarine 
into leaving the convoy alone, not an unreasonable assumption given 
Hitler's reluctance to risk heavy surface units.

I recommend any book covering the Arctic convoys, absolutely most 
especially the novel "HMS Ulysses" by Alistair MacLean. Anything on 
PQ17 or Sherbrooke's defense of JW51B with 6 destroyers against the 
Hipper, Lutzow and 6 DDs on 12/31/1942 will also cover the essentials.
Michael Carter Llaneza
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1991-1950
Devolution is very real to me.
Whenever I hear the "Odd Couple" theme, I get this image of Dennis 
Rodman borrowing Marge Schott's toothbrush.
Overkill: A Sufficient Preponderance of Firepower
http://www.flash.net/~maserati/
Security and Privacy Alert:
http://www.cryptonym.com/hottopics/msft-nsa.html


Prev: Re: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval Next: [sfconsim-l] Re: abstract movement system: HG/TCS