Author Topic: Naval Pictures V: The Glorious Fifth (Read 205104 times)

The Eagle · « **Reply #630 on:** 02 June 2018, 15:44:14 »

Quote from: Cannonshop on 29 May 2018, 09:20:22

Two less admirable possibilities occur to me to explain it:

1. France had already surrendered to the Germans and they thought they were on the 'winning side of history' to a degree that surrendering to the 'eventual losers' was a bad move for their futures.
2. Suicide attempt.

I blame the Royal Navy actually. After Petain's surrender, the Brits feared the French Navy's capital ships falling into German hands, so they launched a surprise attack to sink as many French ships as possible in their new, North African ports. As a result, the French Navy in general had strong pro-Axis sympathies. So when the French see Allied ships sailing towards them, they immediately go into "shoot them!" Mode.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #631 on:** 02 June 2018, 16:08:16 »

Quote from: The Eagle on 02 June 2018, 15:44:14

I blame the Royal Navy actually. After Petain's surrender, the Brits feared the French Navy's capital ships falling into German hands, so they launched a surprise attack to sink as many French ships as possible in their new, North African ports. As a result, the French Navy in general had strong pro-Axis sympathies. So when the French see Allied ships sailing towards them, they immediately go into "shoot them!" Mode.

You can't blame the RN, they had far too many centuries of tradition of fighting the French to let something as minor as being on the same side as them stop them

Dragon Cat · « **Reply #632 on:** 02 June 2018, 16:14:31 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 02 June 2018, 16:08:16

You can't blame the RN, they had far too many centuries of tradition of fighting the French to let something as minor as being on the same side as them stop them

Backs against the wall, out classed army, little chance of holding off the Luftwaffe (initial feelings despite grim determination) the navy was their only real advantage letting the French one fall into enemy hands with only the French's word that it wouldn't was not good enough in their minds.

Had the Royal Navy not attacked the French what would have happened no-one knows and that was too much of a chance to take.

Nightlord01 · « **Reply #633 on:** 02 June 2018, 18:22:46 »

Quote from: The Eagle on 02 June 2018, 15:44:14

I blame the Royal Navy actually. After Petain's surrender, the Brits feared the French Navy's capital ships falling into German hands, so they launched a surprise attack to sink as many French ships as possible in their new, North African ports. As a result, the French Navy in general had strong pro-Axis sympathies. So when the French see Allied ships sailing towards them, they immediately go into "shoot them!" Mode.

Vichy France fought much harder against the Allies than pre-war France ever did against the Germans. It's a fact that the west was loathe to accept post-war, but it's a fact none the less. It's also why the French Surrender remains so frowned upon, "Why'd you fold so quick against them, and fight so hard against us?"

nerd · « **Reply #634 on:** 02 June 2018, 20:20:46 »

Quote from: Nightlord01 on 02 June 2018, 07:41:20

The JMSDF isn't obsessively focused on ASW, they just don't put AAW on a pedestal like most other navies do.

And in honour of our friends, here's the worlds largest Destroyer, the Izumo Class DDH JS Izumo:

Looks like the JMSDF will be getting F-35B's and MV-22's to operate off her. Source: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201805260034.html

Yamato's IJN is coming back....

Kidd · « **Reply #635 on:** 02 June 2018, 21:02:23 »

Quote from: nerd on 02 June 2018, 20:20:46

Looks like the JMSDF will be getting F-35B's and MV-22's to operate off her. Source: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201805260034.html

Yamato's IJN is coming back....

They do need to buck up. The JSDF has certain obsolescence issues they ought to deal with to be a credible power in the Pacific, or indeed to fulfill their self-defence remit anyway.

Wrangler · « **Reply #636 on:** 02 June 2018, 23:20:10 »

I wonder they can handle the costs. A carrier like Izumo isn't going be enough to handle real aircraft duties.
They'll likely need build full on carrier similar to the British's Queen Elizabeth class if they want to compete with Chinese with their large carriers.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #637 on:** 03 June 2018, 03:43:53 »

Quote from: Wrangler on 02 June 2018, 23:20:10

I wonder they can handle the costs. A carrier like Izumo isn't going be enough to handle real aircraft duties.
They'll likely need build full on carrier similar to the British's Queen Elizabeth class if they want to compete with Chinese with their large carriers.

Do the Japanese need to base their strike fighters on carriers or can they base them from land?
I am working on the assumption that Japan is looking to remain a regional and defensive focused power rather than expeditionary.
ASW helicopters/ships and their air defence destroyers (and something to carry the helicopters) do make sense for keeping their sea lines of communication open.
I'm essentially viewing Japan as similar to the UK but without the drive to undertake expeditionary stuff.

Cannonshop · « **Reply #638 on:** 03 June 2018, 04:28:48 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 03 June 2018, 03:43:53

Do the Japanese need to base their strike fighters on carriers or can they base them from land?
I am working on the assumption that Japan is looking to remain a regional and defensive focused power rather than expeditionary.
ASW helicopters/ships and their air defence destroyers (and something to carry the helicopters) do make sense for keeping their sea lines of communication open.
I'm essentially viewing Japan as similar to the UK but without the drive to undertake expeditionary stuff.

hmmm... you know, the comment I was about to make def. strays into real-world politics.

Let's look at more pretty ship pictures...

GreyWolfActual · « **Reply #639 on:** 03 June 2018, 15:22:05 »

Quote from: Nightlord01 on 02 June 2018, 18:22:46

but it's a fact none the less.

Ya, no. Completely, 100%, wrong. Let's look at the two biggest campaigns for each "side." Those would be the Battle of France against the Axis and North Africa against the Allies.

Length of Campaign
BoF: 46 days
NA: 8 days

Soldiers Committed
BoF: 2,240,000 soldiers
NA: 125,000 soldiers

French Casualties
BoF: 58,829 killed
NA: 1,346 killed

Casualties Inflicted
BoF: 27,074 killed
NA: 1,100 killed

Wrangler · « **Reply #640 on:** 03 June 2018, 16:08:32 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 03 June 2018, 03:43:53

Do the Japanese need to base their strike fighters on carriers or can they base them from land?
I am working on the assumption that Japan is looking to remain a regional and defensive focused power rather than expeditionary.
ASW helicopters/ships and their air defense destroyers (and something to carry the helicopters) do make sense for keeping their sea lines of communication open.
I'm essentially viewing Japan as similar to the UK but without the drive to undertake expeditionary stuff.

I think it would be hard sort of unless they buy a older carrier from the United States. Such as the Kitty Hawk or another mothballed conventional carrier. They don't want go nuclear for certain. If they build their own, it would take years they won't have time to weight. They'd have use F/A-18s or something else for the air compliment. F/A-35C would properly work for their strike needs if they need do that sort thing. Japan's nautical industry hasn't build a warship scale of a Shinano size warship since WW2. Having existing short-term existing ship will work provided there isn't too many thing needs to be fixed/retrofitted. Decades of build up of industry and developing systems will make hard.

As for projection. Sure they have the island airbases, but having carrier means you don't have a fixed target where enemy KNOWS where you are. Vs Something you can move.

In the meantime. Last frontline aircraft carrier Japan produced. The Unryu Class Aircraft Carrier. The first of three ships produced, starting with Unryu it's self in 1944.

Cannonshop · « **Reply #641 on:** 03 June 2018, 20:15:30 »

Quote from: GreyWolfActual on 03 June 2018, 15:22:05

Ya, no. Completely, 100%, wrong. Let's look at the two biggest campaigns for each "side." Those would be the Battle of France against the Axis and North Africa against the Allies.

Length of Campaign
BoF: 46 days
NA: 8 days

Soldiers Committed
BoF: 2,240,000 soldiers
NA: 125,000 soldiers

French Casualties
BoF: 58,829 killed
NA: 1,346 killed

Casualties Inflicted
BoF: 27,074 killed
NA: 1,100 killed

might keep in mind the proportions here. North Africa: a colony. France is...well, france. there's bound to be more french soldiers in france than in Casablanca or Tunisia.

GreyWolfActual · « **Reply #642 on:** 03 June 2018, 21:56:55 »

Fine, let's look at proportions.

Mortality Rate
BoF: 2.62%
NA: 1.08%

So North Africa was less than half as lethal for the soldiers stationed there. It lasted less time, had fewer soldiers, who inflicted fewer casualties, and took significantly less even when adjusted proportionally. Yet somehow that adds up to Vichy France fighting harder against us.

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #643 on:** 03 June 2018, 22:24:39 »

Gentlemen?

Ship pictures. Not casualty bickering.

Kidd · « **Reply #644 on:** 03 June 2018, 22:27:25 »

I have always rather liked the look of the d'Estienne d'Orves class avisos (sloops). They might look as cluttered as fishing boats to modern eyes, but there's a certain Cold War functionality to them, nonetheless.

marauder648 · « **Reply #645 on:** 04 June 2018, 02:58:10 »

Speaking of Cold War designs

The Udaloy class from the Soviet Union was an absolutely stunningly handsome ship. I always preferred the look of the Soviet stuff over the stark ulitarian designs of the USN like the OHP, Spruance and Ticho's.

And there was their Anti-shipping counterpart the Sovremmeny who again were very very handsome ships.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #646 on:** 04 June 2018, 04:02:31 »

I think the last years of Russian/Soviet designs were really nice looking ships.
I think the Kirov class ships is one of the nicest looking ships out there.

Deadborder · « **Reply #647 on:** 04 June 2018, 07:33:18 »

I am a huge fan of the Sovremmeny and Kirov from the asthetic point of view, if nothing else. I really love the clutter about them, among other things.

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #648 on:** 04 June 2018, 07:35:34 »

The Soviets definitely didn't do 'streamlined' designs. You know exactly what weapons systems, electronics, etc. their ships have because they're right out there to see- VLS and such be damned. Maybe not the most efficient designs, but they definitely are WARSHIPS in aesthetics.

marauder648 · « **Reply #649 on:** 04 June 2018, 07:39:19 »

IIRC the Soviets were quite inovative at sea and they did use VLS in their later designs, the Udaloy's SA-N-9 SAM is a VLS launcher wheras the older SA-N-4 was a pop up launcher.

And I do love the Kirov and I also love the look of its 'cheap' backup the Slava class

As you said JadeHellbringer, they didn't do streamlined and it wasn't that efficient but DAMN it looks good.

And speaking of the SA-N-4 I think this one is in need of a serious bit of an overhaul and some WD-40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrgyuMOKtKY

Kidd · « **Reply #650 on:** 04 June 2018, 07:47:50 »

@marauder - I have the book that diagram comes from, its pretty spiffy. And yes, the Slavas are one of my all time favourites.

nerd · « **Reply #651 on:** 04 June 2018, 20:24:11 »

Quote from: Kidd on 03 June 2018, 22:27:25

I have always rather liked the look of the d'Estienne d'Orves class avisos (sloops). They might look as cluttered as fishing boats to modern eyes, but there's a certain Cold War functionality to them, nonetheless.

When my dad was on Haitian Refugee Operations in 1994, he got a tote bag from the ARA Guerrico (P-32) of that type.

And now ships of that class serve in the Turkish Navy alongside second hand OHPs/

marauder648 · « **Reply #652 on:** 05 June 2018, 00:09:08 »

The Kashin class, probably the Soviet Unions first truly modern destroyer after the endless parade of Sorky, Kotlin and Kanin's and were the first Soviet ship to have gas turbines giving them an impressive flank speed of 35 knots.

Six ships still exist today, 5 were built to a modified design for the Indian navy and one is still in service with the Russian navy, serving in the Black Sea.

truetanker · « **Reply #653 on:** 05 June 2018, 13:58:29 »

I just saw what happened to this beauty, sad story never deployed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

TT

Deadborder · « **Reply #654 on:** 05 June 2018, 16:10:00 »

Quote from: truetanker on 05 June 2018, 13:58:29

I just saw what happened to this beauty, sad story never deployed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

TT

No, it's never being finished, being the subject of non-stop political infighting and being a giant money and resource sink is a very ogod thing.

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #655 on:** 05 June 2018, 16:25:07 »

It also had basically nothing to fly from it. Navalized versions of the Me-109 and Ju-87 were obsolete before they even left the drawing board, and never went past the prototype stage. No one involved had anything even resembling an idea how to run a carrier beyond second-hand reports from the Americans, British, and Japanese navies. No torpedo bomber really was ever put forward for the ship to use- a rather vital weapon, as foreign carriers proved time and again.

This was a paper tiger, even if she'd run her commissioning pennant up.

Dave Talley · « **Reply #656 on:** 05 June 2018, 16:54:57 »

iirc Focke Wulf proposed a centerline torpedo mount for the FW190, but it was too late to go anywhere, which sucks since the FW landing gear would have handled carrier conditions better

truetanker · « **Reply #657 on:** 05 June 2018, 17:14:48 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 05 June 2018, 16:25:07

No torpedo bomber really was ever put forward for the ship to use- a rather vital weapon, as foreign carriers proved time and again.

If she was ready, she could have carried loaded with Junkers Ju 88's and their variants, along with 87 Stukas. Maybe even carried the Fieseler Fi 103R Reichenberg?

Thoughts on that?

TT

Also have you guys seen the rubberized U-Boat?
https://uboat.net/boats/u480.htm

Dave Talley · « **Reply #658 on:** 05 June 2018, 17:41:25 »

the wiki refers to a Feisler 167
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1483
thats all the fieslers i can find data on

GreyWolfActual · « **Reply #659 on:** 05 June 2018, 17:46:49 »

Quote from: truetanker on 05 June 2018, 17:14:48

she could have carried loaded with Junkers Ju 88's and their variants

No.

The Luftwaffe never considered the Ju-88 for a variety of reasons. For starters, its big and heavy. It's takeoff weight is roughly 30,000 pounds. By comparison, the TBF Avenger came in around 18,000. That's a lot more weight to throw off a deck.

The wingspan would be a problem too. The Avenger had a 54 foot wingspan while the Ju-88 came in at 65. That might not seem like a big deal but consider this: the Essex ran with with a 108 foot flight deck (double the wingspan of an Avenger). The Graf Zepplin would only have had a 98 foot wide flight deck. Instead of having a margin of error of your wingspan the Graf Zepplin would have had only half the Ju-88's wingspan. That's a recipe for a lot of accidents.

On that note, the Luftwaffe managed something successful practice in landings in something like 1,500 out of 1,800 land tests. 5 out of 6 successful landings is truly abysmal for carrier landings. And that was with the aircraft they went ahead with. The Ju-88 would have been an absolute deathtrap for crews on the plane and the deck crews.