| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| Greek Battlecruiser 1944 http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4863 |
Page 2 of 4 |
| Author: | Navarchos [ January 30th, 2014, 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 |
My idea was that, RHN was in need of a fast BattleCruiser which would have the ability of AA role and Airstrike when it will be needed. As you know Aegean sea is full of small islands and it is not possible to have air support facilities to the majority of them. Also from the early 30's it was obvious that the future enemy was not Turkey but Italy....so RHN had to search for ships which could operate at the SE & Central Meditteranean sea as well as Adriatic Sea, where the RHAF could not always provide air support. So this ship could easy support the fleet with Heavy AA barage & Seaplanes Fighters protection or Seaplanes Bombers strike against the enemy fleet as well as engaging the enemy cruisers/Destroyers and sometimes Battleships in cooperation with the friendly BBs. |
|
| Author: | erik_t [ January 30th, 2014, 3:15 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 | |
I disagree with both Golly and erik_t on the issue of aviation. The USN kept aircraft on board its cruisers till ca. 1950, when the catapults were finally removed and the aviation replaced with helicopters in some cases. The RHN would have great use of fighter/spotter planes operating from their cruisers. The geography and topography of the Aegean and southern Adriatic littoral makes it very hard for radar (especially the kind of primitive type they had in the 1940s) to fully penetrate , due to the numerous islets, islands and mountain ranges being in their way. Thus a 1940s enemy fleet could relatively easily penetrate, say from the West to the East by basically hogging the Greek shorelines. Spotters could effectively aid in the early detection of such operations.
The USN still operated in the Atlantic and Pacific, oceans many thousands of kilometers across. Flying across the Med is, oh, about 300.As for names, how 'bout "Vasilefs Romanos I Lekapenos" after the great Byzantine admiral cum Emperor, whose time was a golden era for the Byzantine navy? Completely and utterly different roles. Even if you demand the capability to have aircraft spotting your fire, I have no idea why one wouldn't make this happen with dedicated land units ashore. |
||
| Author: | bezobrazov [ January 30th, 2014, 3:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 |
Again, erik, don't dismiss the rather rugged topography of the Eastern Meditterranean littoral. It seems that you're doing just that. I stand by my recommendation. Besides, you're arguing as if the Royal Hellenic Army might be in full control of the littoral. They may, in fact, not be, as they, in all likelihood would face superior armies (though not necessarily a superior navy...) I have, in my previous reply, taken those considerations up in my mind. I think Navarchos is on the right track here. |
|
| Author: | Colosseum [ January 30th, 2014, 4:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 |
Wouldn't it make sense for each ship to have its own spotter planes, just in case land-based stuff isn't available? Then you get the added benefit of having a skilled crew that works with that ship often, etc. |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ January 30th, 2014, 4:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 |
An excellent point made, colo, a point I wasn't even considering! |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ January 30th, 2014, 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 |
You bring up an excellent point Colo. Skilled crews. Shipborne aviation is an order of magnitude more expensive than land based and similarly harder to train and operate. On top of that any ships it's going to be spotting against are going to be operating within the envelope of their own land based air cover and they're going to eat any single pontoon equipped aircraft for breakfast. |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ January 30th, 2014, 4:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 |
...and to add one more point on the skills list: the ability to actually (somewhat) correctly ID and enemy ship(-s), especially from a friend, the type of the vessel (-s) and approximate course heading and speed. A naval pilot would have a far greater chance of accomplishing exactly those tasks! |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ January 30th, 2014, 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 |
Yes? There's nothing stopping the navy from having land based planes. Heck, they need them if they want sea based ones. At least if they want a manageable attrition rate. |
|
| Author: | Colosseum [ January 30th, 2014, 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 |
As always I regret even posting a comment... |
|
| Author: | erik_t [ January 30th, 2014, 5:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Greek Battlecruiser 1944 |
I've never heard of a rugged and confusing and intricate littoral region as an argument for building long-range heavy fleet units. I'm sure the Scandinavians would be fascinated to learn that they've been going about things all wrong. Whatever. |
|
| Page 2 of 4 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|