Nations who can rule the waves without an actual navy

[seattle]

I was thinking about this when I read the battleship-thread. Since battleships work best in region like the Mediterranean where distances are close and air support can be provided by land, I'm going one step further here.

Which nations can rules the local/relevant waves without actually having a navy?

1. Italy
Strategy: Disband most of the navy or send as exped force to allies. Keep all transport ships and 1 task force consisting of your best ships to protect your transports.
Then invest heavily in air tech and doctrines and keep mass producing fighters, tac bombers and naval bombers.
Idea: Gain total air supremacy over the Mediterranean and Northern Africa. Then patrol the sea with your huge naval bomber fleet and destroy the Desert Rats with your tac bombers.
You can't win a naval arms race against the British, but you can massively outproduce them in fighters at least in that region. The UK won't be able to field the majority of their fighters in the Med because of Germany. So you should be able to beat them in this field. Air supremacy will then make your naval bombers killing machines.

2. Germany
Well, it could work to a lesser degree but a deciding one nonetheless. The idea is basically Goering's plan for Sealion. Gain air supremacy over the Channel for several months, bombard the RN should they dare to enter the Channel and transfer the Wehrmacht to English soil. It would be a very limited (both in time and scope) rule over the sea, but maybe the war winning strategy.

----------------------------------
Comments and other ideas, please!

 

[Ariakus Fordring]

I always wondered is this strategy have a chance to work.In HoI 3 port strikes were punishing (at least to me),but I never saw a decisive naval bombing on surface ships.In theory,as long as Lutwaffe keep the air superiority it is possible establish a "NOPE" area in Channel and have naval supremacy.I'm no expert on the subject but I'm in favour of this.

 

[Denkt]

I don't think you will be able to dominate the seas with airpower alone.

 

[seattle]

I don't think you will be able to dominate the seas with airpower alone.

Why not, given the limited scope of the dominance (like Italy ruling the Mediterranean)?
Naval bombers beat surface ships. Fighters beat naval bombers, but since land based-fighters can reach every part of the Med you can negate the British carriers. So we're left with naval bombers vs. surface ships without carriers.

 

[Denkt]

To protect your ships you need fighters. The enemy can not solve the problem by throwing infinite amount of aircrafts because of diminish returns so at some point it should be relative safe for ships to operate in the area and the only realistic way left to dislodge these ships are to send your own ships after them.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

To protect your ships you need fighters. The enemy can not solve the problem by throwing infinite amount of aircrafts because of diminish returns so at some point it should be relative safe for ships to operate in the area and the only realistic way left to dislodge these ships are to send your own ships after them.

The turning point for diminishing return of planes is pretty much in the sky, historically it's possible for more than 500 aircrafts to attack a single fleet without much trouble.

 

[Denkt]

It is more for game balance because if everything is based on having most aircrafts then there is not much strategical depth.

Realistically the more aircrafts you send out the larger the risk are that the defender is prepered for them and the fighters may already be waiting for the attacking aircrafts.

Attack by the air was extreamly effective then the enemy was not prepered for them but later in the war countermessures against air attacks was so effective that USA navy caculated that Japan had to sacrifice 40 aircrafts to make one hit with conventional weapons or 20 aircrafts for one kamizake hit. And that is for one hit not for a sinking.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

It is more for game balance because if everything is based on having most aircrafts then there is not much strategical depth.

Realistically the more aircrafts you send out the larger the risk are that the defender is prepered for them and the fighters may already be waiting for the attacking aircrafts.

But that's just WWII being WWII—BoB (as a preliminary to Sealion), British bombardment of RM, and the entire Pacific Theater all shows and confirms the belief that superior airpower can trump navies.

And normally no one send naval bombers without cover unless they're out of range or the enemy's air force has been destroyed.

 

[Denkt]

I would not say it is so simple. Like in the pacific USA won basically every important battle against Japan even though Japan did have some significant advantages, especially in carriers and in pilotes in the early part of the war.

This because USA learnt and had access to technology which made it very hard for Japan to make successful air attacks against USA navy while USA air attacks found plenty of targets in the Japanese navy.

It took more effort to sink one USA carrier at midway then it took to sink 4 japanese carriers, and that was just a taste of what the future would hold, soon Japan could not sink a USA fleet carrier while USA could sink every ship Japan had.

Had Japan had the same ability as USA it could have come down to surface engament but if you have archer superiority why engage in a melee?

 

[RVallant]

I think people under-estimate the distances in the Pacific...

And Italy wouldn't be able to do it, they'd still need to actually find the enemy ships for one point, and running planes every minute of the day is going to be a massive resource hog in terms of fuel, and manpower. The higher wear and tear and fatigue will just lead to additional drains including more mechanical work.

Germany couldn't and can't do it because of little Britain force-projecting its own air power, and the USA and Japan would have no hope of getting air forces to dominate the entire Pacific based on distances alone.

IMO anyway.

 

[kviiri]

The Mediterranean is too large to efficiently defend with simply naval bombers, I believe. The likely enemies of GB and France will also no doubt try to defend with planes of their own. However, Italy can make the idea more appealing by alliances that block Gibraltar for their enemies, reducing the amount of ships that need to be tackled.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Italian army might have sucked during WW2, but they had very good special forces. So Italy might have been able to capture Gibraltar, Malta and Suez, sealing British off from Mediterranean.

 

[CrasherZZ]

Naval bombers alone cannot stop a heavily escorted invasion fleet. A task force consisting of battleships, light cruisers, and assault ships will survive air attacks long enough to get the troops on shore, then withdraw. Even if you sank most of the ships, as long the Marines got on shore and captured the port the invasion is a success.

In order to stop an invasion dead in its tracks you need a combination of naval bombers and surface ships powerful enough to defeat the invasion fleets escorts and force them to retreat.

 

[No idea]

Italian army might have sucked during WW2, but they had very good special forces. So Italy might have been able to capture Gibraltar, Malta and Suez, sealing British off from Mediterranean.

That falls on the realm of fantasy land, imho.

 

[Invictus5966]

Well I hope single Ships can slip into the N Atlantic like they said to merchant raid. The WWW isn't showing that.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Naval bombers alone cannot stop a heavily escorted invasion fleet. A task force consisting of battleships, light cruisers, and assault ships will survive air attacks long enough to get the troops on shore, then withdraw. Even if you sank most of the ships, as long the Marines got on shore and captured the port the invasion is a success.

In order to stop an invasion dead in its tracks you need a combination of naval bombers and surface ships powerful enough to defeat the invasion fleets escorts and force them to retreat.

Erm nope, an invasion fleet that lost in the air will not succeed. Unlike regular warships, the assault ships have to head to their designated targets so they can't just maneuver indefinitely, and they're typically slow, making them easier to torpedo or bomb. For the final stage small beach landing craft, it's even worse: enemy aircrafts can strafe them while the escorts can't get close due to shallow water near the landing beach.

 

[seattle]

Just a reminder: This is not a historical debate! It's about what we think will work in HoI4 based on our experience with previous titles in the series and the coverage we've seen and read about HoI4.

Arguments like "Mediterranean too big to control with air force" aren't applicable to the game. The area will probably consist of 2-3 regions (in terms of air combat). Let's say Italy has a historical air force of 100 with a tech level of 50. I play Italy and decide to go all-out air force. I build an airforce of the size 200 and invest heavily in air techs and doctrines, increasing efficiency from 50 to 100.
As an effect my airforce will be 4 times more powerful than historical Italy's airforce was. Also my air fleet will be concentrated in fighters, tac and naval bombers. I tend to achieve that by ignoring naval production and research entirely and only build some garrisons. I use the existing army for offensive operations.

Now, my powerful airforce will be distributed 100% in the 2-3 air regions in the Mediterranean area. I will probably reach air supremacy due to: a) my powerful airforce and b) Britain having to split her airforce to fend off Germany. Britain can't win both theatres. Once air supremacy is achieved, my naval bombers can wreck havoc upon the RN in the Mediterranean.

I fail to see why it shouldn't be possible in HoI4 and HoI4 only. Similar approaches have always worked in HoI games and rightfully so.

#invasion fleets
I will produce dozens of garrison units to guard each port in my territory and my conquests. Amphibious invasions should take long enough then for the bombers to devastate the transport ships.

 

[scroggin]

With the new system for aircombat how well will we be able to target a fleet we can see? It seems like you just set an area for the bombers to operate in. Will we be able to get them to coordinate an attack on a fleet in one sea area or will they just continue to search over a wider area?

 

[keynes2.0]

So we're left with naval bombers vs. surface ships without carriers.

Air power isn't just a yes or no binary. If the British are operating far from major Italian airfields, Italy can't surprise British ships. Look at the carrier battles in the pacific, it's all a game of recon, trying to find the enemy ships so that you can attack them. Defending aircraft on the other hand always know where the friendly fleet is so if they can see an attack coming an hour in advance they will hit it at maximum strength at a time of their choosing. While ground based aircraft certainly had value in the Mediterranean, they did not have the ability to deny sea on such a grand scale. Planes can only stay in air for a short while and then they need to fly home.

Or to put it another way, look at the Battle of Britain to see that the defender has advantages in resisting attacking aircraft.

 

[mursolini]

Naval bombers alone cannot stop a heavily escorted invasion fleet. A task force consisting of battleships, light cruisers, and assault ships will survive air attacks long enough to get the troops on shore, then withdraw. Even if you sank most of the ships, as long the Marines got on shore and captured the port the invasion is a success.

In order to stop an invasion dead in its tracks you need a combination of naval bombers and surface ships powerful enough to defeat the invasion fleets escorts and force them to retreat.

Question really is about force ratio. It takes attack by 50-200 aircrafts in air to reliably sink a BB. Some 10-20 will not return.

The invasion will take several weeks to really drop all the troops, if we are talking D-day scale invasion. If the defender has 500-1000 naval bombers, no realistic fleet will be able to maintain operations for necessary time, without having adequate air cover.

Air power isn't just a yes or no binary. If the British are operating far from major Italian airfields, Italy can't surprise British ships. Look at the carrier battles in the pacific, it's all a game of recon, trying to find the enemy ships so that you can attack them. Defending aircraft on the other hand always know where the friendly fleet is so if they can see an attack coming an hour in advance they will hit it at maximum strength at a time of their choosing. While ground based aircraft certainly had value in the Mediterranean, they did not have the ability to deny sea on such a grand scale. Planes can only stay in air for a short while and then they need to fly home.

Or to put it another way, look at the Battle of Britain to see that the defender has advantages in resisting attacking aircraft.

Planes can more - or - less reliably deny the water to enemy fleet within their range, if they can overwhelm the defending airforce. Pacific has small islands, where it is next to impossible to operate large enough airfileds, and supply lanes can be cut from very far away.

Obviously defenders have advantage, but it is not huge by any means. It doesn`t beat 1.5-2 times the numbers. Carriers are vastly more expencive than airfields, hence land based planes have large advantage, and Brits prefered not to operate carriers in Med, unless absolutely necessary.