What is with the Nephilim?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another factor in Leyete Gulf was the lack of carrier based aircraft. Four months before the Leyte landings - at the Battle of the Philippine Sea - the Japanese Navy made its final major effort to defeat the US fleet with carrier-borne aircraft. They sent 9 carriers with 473 aircraft into the battle, but their aircrew were poorly trained (they kept trying to replace their losses at Midway, but it was a meat grinder for their pilots), and at that point the American equipment was superior, that the Japanese air groups were massacred. Nearly 200 of their aircraft were shot down over or near Task Force 58, the Fast Carrier Force, in one afternoon. Three Japanese carriers were sunk in the battle, and the IJN lost nearly 500 carrier and land-based aircraft in two days. As a result of the destruction of their air groups the Japanese carriers, which at the start of the Pacific War were the spearhead of the Japanese offensive, were reduced by the time of the Leyte campaign to the role of decoys, and the task of making the real attacks on the Allied invasion fleet was of necessity left to the IJN's battleship and heavy cruiser forces, which were still largely intact, and to what land-based air power the Japanese could still muster.

I've always seen Confed's situation in WCIII mirroring the Japanese postion at this point in the war. The Cats had the upper hand and were outproducing Confed, part of what cost Japan the war was they weren't able to produce enough to continue the fight and were losing access to natural resources they did not have locally.
 
Very true Penquin, the Japanese moral had to be low, but still pulling back seems a little strange for the Japanese. Afterall, in many cases the closer they came to defeat, the harder they fought, another similarity to Confed in WC3. It just seems kinda silly that they would pull back their heavy guns from a few escort carriers in the very battle when they first utilized the kamikazee attack. However, maybe the Japanese admiralty wasn't quite ready to make the sacrifice they demanded from their airmen.
 
I get the feeling the Japanese pulled back because of poor reconnaissance. They couldn't find the American ships and were tired of being targets. So they pulled back to safety.

If we were to gather everyone that had ever pinned on general and admiral stars or equivalent rank and then separate from them all the ones that had actually endured the same tribulations as their men (after promotion) I think we would see a big disparity in the two groups.
 
Japanese lookouts had sighted the U.S. escort carriers when Kurita's ships were deploying from column into a circular anti-aircraft disposition. The U.S. Seventh Fleet contained a large task group of eighteen escort carriers, divided into three task units of six carriers each. In accounts of the battle these units are generally referred to by their radio call-signs "Taffy One", "Taffy Two" and "Taffy Three." This last unit was under the command of Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague.

Admiral Kurita ordered "General Attack," permitting his ships' commanding officers to deploy against the US ships on their own inititative and without referring to the flagship. This was to mean that he lost control of the battle, and his giving such an order when his force was already engaged in redeployment caused immense confusion within the Japanese formation.

Shortly after the battle began Taffy Three's carriers entered a rain squall which protected them for about fifteen minutes and enabled Sprague to bring them around to the south-west - i.e. towards Leyte Gulf and the rest of Seventh Fleet. Sprague ordered his three Fletcher-class destroyers - Hoel, Heermann and Johnston - to counter-attack the Japanese formation. They unflinchingly took on the battleships and cruisers, engaging these heavy ships with their 5-inch guns as well as their torpedoes. Then, the American destroyer escorts joined the counter-attack. The Yamato, now serving as Kurita's flagship after the sinking of Atago, was forced to turn away for ten minutes by torpedoes from the American destroyers and was never able to get back into the action. A very confused struggle by the destroyers and destroyer escorts against the Japanese force continued for over two hours. Eventually the Hoel and Johnston, and the destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts, had been sunk by Japanese gunfire. At least one torpedo hit was made on Kurita's ships, and probably more, but what was of much greater importance was that the Japanese heavy ships had been forced into repeated evasive action and that this had slowed their advance, caused increasing confusion in the already badly disorganized Japanese formation, and deprived Kurita of any chance of regaining effective control of his force.

While the small ships of Sprague's screen were conducting these desperate counter-attacks the Japanese ships were also subjected to incessant assaults by aircraft from the three Taffies. Many of these attacks were carried out by aircraft armed with weapons intended for ground support and quite unsuited for attack on large warships, and many others were dummy attacks by unarmed aircraft. Nonetheless, with the weapons available to them, the aircraft succeeded in sinking three heavy cruisers and damaging several other ships. These air attacks also played a vital role in support of the destroyers and DEs in distracting the enemy ships from the escort carriers, forcing them into evasive manoevres, and disorganizing the Japanese formation.

I think Kurita was afraid the TF34 was on their way back, having responded to the plain message calls for help the 7th fleet was sending out, and he would be caught by fresh aircraft and better postioned U.S. cruisers and battleships, and be unable to withdrawl at all. It may not have been clear to Kurita that the landings at Leyete were to be prevented at all costs, and he was operating on the assumption he had a limited time to accomplish his goals and the saftey of the majority of his ships was more important than knocking out the landing craft but losing his fleet in the process. The U.S. was able to fight a delaying action long enough to make Kurita feel he had no choice but to retreat or become annihilated.
 
Can't let this thread die - though even I think it's on life support. I hope the admins don't choose to close it like the word association one, that one was fun. Except when whoever-it-was decided to keep repeating "stupid."

I also mentioned this in another thread - the dreadnought and carriers have their fighters, the Kraken has its plasma weapon, what use do the other capships have? Oops, I just remembered they can carry CapShip missiles. But that was only in Luyten System, implying that it's a rare thing. Any other ideas?
 
TC really hit the nail on the head though. Threads are closed when they get stupid, not because they're long...
 
All capships have their uses. In WC I think it goes something like this:
Corvette: Small capship which the enemy mass produces to hack us off
wink2.gif

Transport: Hauls all our essentials around when we can't be bothered putting it on the carrier.
Destroyer: Capship missile slinging vessel. Sometimes escorts carriers.
Cruiser: A big hard to kill target.
Starbase: A big easy to kill target.
Carrier: Our home.
Dreadnought: Big ass ship that's meant to be invincible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a capship in WC that's hard to destroy (besides the corvette, its as tough as any fighter to take out)!!!!

------------------
There is no God but myself. No destiny but what I deem for me. I walk my path and no others, for I am free.

http://www.ntr.net/~vondoom
 
I think the best answer to this question comes from todays Navy's, as WC is really based off of them, so I'll just pull stuff of the US Navy Fact File for the hell of it.

Frigate (or Corvette) - Frigates fulfill a Protection of Shipping (POS) mission as Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups and merchant convoys.

Destroyers - These fast warships help safeguard larger ships in a fleet or battle group.

Cruisers - Large combat vessel with multiple target response capability.

Carriers - Aircraft carriers provide a wide range of possible response for the National Command Authority. To provide a credible, sustainable, independent forward presence and conventional deterrence in peacetime, to operate as the cornerstone of joint/allied maritime expeditionary forces in times of crisis, and to operate and support aircraft attacks on enemies, protect friendly forces and engage in sustained independent operations in war.

Dreadnought - There aren't any, but imagine a carrier/cruiser all rolled into one.

<A HREF="http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ffiletop.html">Navy Fact File</A>
 
Actually, why are there dreadnoughts in WC? A dreadnought is kind of a stupid idea, IMO. A carrier's power is its fighters, you don't want to expose it to fire. By throwing heavy armor on one and some weapons, you might be gaining a really nice weapon, but you are putting your most valuable asset into harms way, and you are spending a LOT of money. If it was a good idea, I think you would see them in today's Navy's.
 
Think of a dreadnought as a carrier, with the power to whithstand a heavy capship attack, and able to attack heavy capships without the need for fighters. How many carriers in the WCU were destroyed despite their fighters, because they weren't able to survive a few torpedo hits?

The Hakaga class the Kilrathi had could very well be considered a dreadnought. It can take more torp hits than a carrier, and has enough guns to make a cruiser run for it's money. Now, if you can have an even heavier ship, with a little less fighters but much more torps and capship missiles, you'll have a great advantage.


[This message has been edited by Earthworm (edited September 30, 2000).]
 
First of all, in the question I am really talking conceptually, not in reference to WC. Obviously, in WC they must be a worthwhile endeaver, otherwise they wouldn't keep building them (unless the military appopriations was done stupidly by political leaders, aka Trent Lott)

I have absolutly no problem seeing a heavily armored carrier, you want all of your ships heavily armored. I have no problem with heavy defensive anti-aircraft weapons, but heavy offensive weaponry I just don't get. If I launch an offensive, and I fail, I want to have my carriers way back, so they can live to fight another day. You make a gamble with a dreadnought, which you basically have to if you want to legitimize having offensive weapons on it, and lose, you lose your heavy offensive power and your carrier. I'm all about the carrier battle group. Send your fighters, hold your carriers back, attack with your cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and submarines (or, be it WC, any stealth vessels) all of which really should be able to be done from long range if you are talking reality. However, if you do have to send them forward as in the case of WC, hold back enough to protect your carrier. If it looks like things are going bad, you can always sacrifice some, or if need be, all or your other ships in a little delaying action, like the destroyer and destroyer escorts at Leyte Gulf, and maybe you can pull back your carrier to safty or buy enough time for some support.
 
Wolf Dog: I don't know about you but if a carrier loses it's escorts and it's fighter wing it's dead. In WC carriers are armed with big weapons because it makes sense. They are normally the largest ships we've got. With those amrmaments they can really bring the fight to the enemy instead of being totally dependent on their escorts.
Look at the real world. The Russian Kuznetsov and Kiev classes are armed with anti-ship missiles. If their escorts get sunk and their fighters missiled (if the Cold War went hot this is a high probability) then at least they'd be able to bite back.
 
You have a very good point about WC that I never considered before. The big weapons thrown on carriers to make them dreadnoughts are probably done for convienence. Afterall, as you said, they are the largest ships, and building a larger cruiser to accomodate the a massive 'superweapon' would probably not be cost effective. Still, the thought of sending my carrier right into the fire is a little unsettling.

As for the Russian ships, the Kiev really isn't much of a carrier. With just a dozen fighters (which had to be vertical takeoff) and some helicopters, it would be considered a heavy cruiser if it were in WC. The Kuznetsov isn't really that much better, really only improving on the Kiev as a more capable combantant, and not requiring it's small airwing (about 30 fighters) to be verticle takeoff. It would be a light carrier/heavy cruiser in WC.

In any case, I wouldn't call them dreadnoughts. I think a fleet carrier and a cruiser is more versatile than combining the two as a dreadnought.

And true, a simple carrier without escorts and no fighters is basically dead in the water, but if you use the money you save by not putting a superweapon on the carier, you can have more fighters or another cruiser to change the tide of the battle. Of course, they could be destroyed too, but so can the superweapon on the dreadnought. The superweapons are generally useless against fighters, so you just send in a wing of bombers to take it out and use your big guns to finish it off. Of course, if you superweapon only fits on your carrier, why not go for it.

[This message has been edited by Wolf Dog (edited October 01, 2000).]
 
You know, it seems to me that dreadnoughts aren't carriers with superweapons strapped on top to make them more battleworthy. Rather, they seem to be battleships with a hangar deck strapped on top to make it more self-sufficient. Remember, there used to be battleships in the WC universe, but they became somewhat obsolete when the Kilrathi developed torpedoes. Thus, a battleship with fighters for protection would be the next logical step. It would also help explain why the Concordia, while being much bigger than the 'Claw, had less fighters.
 
Brilliant observation Quarto. That does seem like a very logical and useful way to improve a battleship. I never considered that the dreadnoughts were the evolution of battleships after the phase torpedo, but it makes perfect sense.

Traditionally battleships have always had a great mystique surrounding them, so keeping a few dreadnoughts around would probably be great for morale, offer a great platform for command and control, and be a very powerful, versatile weapon. Still, I think for shear power, a fleet carrier has a lot more of a punch with its multitudes of fighters, its just that it has to rely on its escorts a lot more, and it doesn't have the cool big guns. However, when you throw in the cost of each fighter, a dreadnought probably would cost about the same, maybe less, so it probably does make sense cost wise as well. You guys convinced me, I'm on the dreadnought bandwagon now.
 
Perhaps we shouldn't be so technical and by the book when we classify ships. Just because something is a carrier doesn't mean it can't be something else. I mean in WC2 there were cruisers with their own flight groups. And all throughout the series the carriers were able to pull their own. Eg. the Tiger Claw torpedoing Kilrathi capships in the movie, the Concordia taking on Kilrathi cruisers, etc.
Anyways when it comes to carriers I think Confed doctrine is that the carrier should be able to defend itself. Look at how many times they are sent on deep penetration strike misssions and how many times they actually have escorts.
 
Well, in WC cruisers have fighters a lot, it just they generally have very few. Enough to give a helping hand, not enough to establish any kind of real presence by themselves.

I not trying to be anal when I classify the different cap ships which carry fighters, but I think there is a general pattern. You have some fairly small ships with about a dozen fighters that have energy weapons meant to take the fight directly to the enemy at close range. Typically, these are cruisers.

Then you have large to mid-sized ships with fighter complements varying with their size. They might have cap ship missiles, but generally their only other weapons are laser turrets that are most useful against incoming fighters. Depending on their size, these are light carriers, carriers, or fleet carriers.

Then you have your large ships with respectable fighter compliments and weapons meant to take the fight to the enemies big ships at close range, alongside the anti-fighter laser turrets. These I would consider dreadnoughts.

So, the only things I take into consideration in classifying in WC are the big guns, size, and fighter compliment. Most cap ship in WC have capship missiles, and all are designed to take a fight, but not neccessarily to dish it out at close range like dreadnoughts with a PTC and loaded with AMGs, or cruisers nicely loaded out with AMGs and heavier turrets.
 
In the WC3 setting the Victory is quite a formidable capship because she's got better shields then most other ships and she's got plenty of laser turrets that can hurt the enemy ships. The AMGs only become really important when shields are strong enough to block weaker weapons totally.
As for fighter complements remember this is WC. 1 fighter can make one hell of a difference
wink2.gif
So a single cruiser with one Blair/Casey/Privateer (insert player name) can really take it home to the enemy
cool.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
True, from the perspectives of the games a single fighter can be lethal, but if you look at the movie or books, individual fighters have much less of an impact. I tend to lean toward the portrayal in the books/movie. The games are balanced to be exciting and fun, so they turn into killing fests, but killing 600 cats or bugs in a short campaign isn't realistic at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top