Re: Realistic Fleet sizes

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 DragonProm@aol.com wrote:
> > << I may be wrong here...but I think the US has close to 14 carrier
> >  battle groups...thats carrier and support ships.  Although that 14
> >  does seem a little high. I am remembering something my history
> >  proffesor said.  Maybe its only about 6 or 7. >>
> 
> I don't think modern fleets are a good benchmark. See below.
> 
> > Yep, quite impressive, esp. for an German like me.
> > When ya hear the carrier xy was send to Z, alwas means an TF around
10-to
> > 20 ships were send out, carriers never go alone.
> 
> True these days... 
> 
> > We in germany only have 3 or 4 Frigates plus half a douzen DD's or
so.
> 
> But how many warships did you have in 1915? 
> 
> I think fleet sizes 1900-1950 are *much* better for benchmarks for
> a couple of reasons:
> 
> a) There are only two real (surface) fleets in the world today.
Everyone 
> else doesn't even begin to compare. How's that for a boring setup?
>
It gets worse than that, as the Russians seem to be letting their fleet
rust in peace, so only the Yanks have a major fleet...
 
> b) There is substantial technology difference: Namely vanilla FT does 
> *not* have anything comparable to long range aircraft or nuclear subs,

> both of which greatly affect modern fleet composition.
> 
> c) The colonial era, and the naval requirements it brought, is
currently 
> over. 
> 
Whereas in FT, we're in the middle of a new colonial era of some sort.
Good point.

> As a sidenote, why do carriers in FT always have support ships around?
> Try this for size:
> 
> Two standard fleet carriers meet. They send out their fighters.
> Each fighter scores an average 1/3 pts. of damage vs. a Sc-2 ship per 
> turn. Considering the 3 turn combat endurance, we get a projected ONE
> point of damage.
> 
> Each CV has 36 fighters. Even completely ignoring various defenses, 
> that's a projected 36 points of damage.
> 
> CV's have 49... unless you get lucky and knock out a shield, the
result 
> will be a pointless stand-off.
> 
> That's what has always irked me about carriers, especially in one-off
> battles: You usually can't hurt them fast enough to stop them
launching
> fighters, and after they have launched, they're still very durable but
> nothing else.  Ergo, it makes no sense to shoot at carriers at all
(except
> in campaigns, or "mopping up"). 
> 
> -- 
> maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)	    | A pig who doesn't
fly
> +358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an
ordinary pig.
> Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	       - Porco
Rosso
> http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |
> 
> 
So the regular FT CV design bugs you...change it, and rewrite your
backgrond to justify it...no problem...unless your new opponent hasn't
heard of your background...

So does anyone have any figures on the various colonial navies, say
1900-1945? Esp. 1900-1918, the era with, AFAIK, the largest number of
big-fleet powers? I'll check Jane's Fighting Ships later in the week, or
Conway's, but if someone could check sooner, that'd be good...

An aside: What's the Jane's equivilent in FT, in 2183? Jane's Fighting
Starships? Just a thought...

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)