Size doesn't matter, it's how you use it..and they used it like stone tools.
Naval Bases as Fleet support/capacity (thoughts)
- Thread starter Riekopo
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The old system? pretty sure that's all hard coded by Paradox. You'd have to check with the mod subforum see what they can dig up on it.
I'd prefer the logistics system we had in Pacific Storm, but that would require a massive overhaul of the entire game, and wouldn't work at all in MP...which is why things get dumbed down so much. It's a large map. Lots of details, layers, and micro management play well in an SP game but makes MP pretty much unplayable.
Bremen Hamburg Stettin Elbing should be handled like inland ports f.e. .
Hamburg builded a lot of ships,but had no compareable naval base.
edit to answer your Q :
most S-/ M-/ R-Boote were build in harbours with smaller dockyards with no naval-base and/or inland ports (some U-Boote aswell)
Last edited:
Admiral Scheer was supplied with 800 cbm oil/fuel from Altmark on high sea in 4h45min through her cruise is that abnormal faster/slower than US-ships did in your opinion?
Supply ships could be a tech (and a unit when researched). They could be added when logistics in general gets reworked.
- 2
Slow, much too slow.
Ok for Germany since we are only talking a hand full of surface ships that actually ever put out to sea, but for a US Fast Carrier TF that would take them several days to a week at that rate.
The Germans, had the High Sea Fleet ever put out in earnest and for duration would have been severely strained, as were the Japanese using similar techniques (They obviously had the double whammy of short supplies on fuel itself).
The German submarine offensive on the US coast is an example of the problems their at sea replenishment system had, as it started to crack and strain rather early.
BICE does add naval tech research that implies better at sea replenishment with increased range and, iirc, some small buff to organization.
It was one of things that made Pacific Storm interesting since we had complete control over our logistics ships. The standard fleet level templates had supply ships inbedded in the fleet, but as ships became increasingly faster they couldnt keep up. as such most navies had their replenishers operating within a known area until emptied or relieved, along routes that were common for warships and convoys.
As such most of us would do much the same, and and use our supply ships to meet ships at sea, replenish, then head back to a port ot reload.
- 1
That old Pacific Storm game on Steam looks cool. There's a newer game called Victory at Sea Pacific that looks cool too. And Strategic Mind: The Pacific looks cool also.
Yea, WWJD has done significant work to it. I remember him from the PSA forums days when he was just learning to Mod the game.
Still has issues though, especially if you are using the steam version (Ive moved to Linux, so my old disk version is not usable). He's working on making a new game along the same lines as PSA from scratch with all he's leaned about how not to code a game with lots of potential.
PS and PSA were great games, but the Devs rushed out that infamous 1.52 patch that broke the hell out if it, then then announced they were ending development and moving to other projects (Like, um, World of Warships, lol) and left us to rot with it.
I haven't seen ArmChairGeneral around here in a while. He was one of most active people on the PSa forums (I think was a Moderator or something, too, for a while...he did a lot of liaison work between us and the Devs). When I first stuck my head into this game I saw he was around and was one reason why I jumped into HOI4
Ill have to check out the other two you mentioned, first I heard of them.
***As player to player I could not actually recommend PS or PSA. If you're not vet of that game you will just find it horribly outdated graphically and buggy as hell.
If your a hard core modder wanting to dabble in some old school techniques (Like the three stage 3d Mesh system we had to use, along with a packer/unpacker tool, ect) or a budding developer wanting to check out long forgotten gameplay concepts lost to history I would definitely suggest picking up a copy and and at least checking it out.
They had a small crew so the coding is messy and not QA'd very well (in psa 1.52, not at all), but the gameplay ideas were fantastic and worthy a visit to inspire. Would love to see someone return to those concepts.
Last edited:
So could you give me an example how much time an US CA would have needed to get refueled by 1 tanker ?
Where exactly?
The Soviets had a big submarine factory in Gorky, far from the coast.
Ctrl - click on the port icon on the map (the anchor with the wrench). You should get a red circle with a slash over the port
https://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/GSBO/GSBO-17.html
Now this was during very rough seas (they eventually had to abort the entire operation because, even with these numbers, it was taking too long and causing too much damage) and they had to stop many times to fix broken lines when they parted in the rough seas. Yes, they are destroyers, but they still managed to run out 800 barrels per hour. Talbot got 830 barrels 40 minutes.
This example is during the Wake invasion. This is early in the war with converted tankers from the 20's and they still managed 800 barrels/hour under extreme weather conditions. By midwar when dedicated replenish came along this only increased speed. Under ideal conditions I would expect somewhere close to 1500-1600 barrels per/hour or better. 1400-1500 if you include the time to set up the rigging. Hard to tell when the example I have is one of a worse case scenario, not ideal scenario.
" The important capabilities of the fast, highly maneuverable 25,000-ton, T3 oilers was not long in coming. One week after the Neches sinking, the Platte fueled the entire Enterprise (TF-11) task group during a marathon dawn to dusk operation in preparation for the high-speed run-in for the planned attack on Kwajalein and Roi in the Marshalls. Developed during the fleet problems of the 1930s, the highspeed run-in was a tactic devised by carrier forces for attacking enemy air bases. Carriers were considered highly vulnerable to attack from land-based aircraft so it was deemed necessary to launch a surprise raid on the enemy's base before the carrier's presence became known. This could only be achieved by approaching the target under cover of darkness so that the carrier would arrive at the scheduled launching point just before first light, allowing for a dawn attack on the enemy's airbase to catch his planes on the ground. Similar tactics were employed by the Japanese on their highly successful attack on Pearl Harbor.
An eight- to ten-hour run-in at 25 to 30 knots was generally required to meet these objectives, and could be easily accomplished by the ships in the task force provided the carrier and her escorts had sufficient fuel reserves needed for the high-speed sprint to the target, any ensuing action that might develop, and the high-speed withdrawal. In preparation for the task, the entire Lexington group beginning with the escorts commenced refueling in the early morning hours on 28 January. At dawn, the first of the escorts approached the oiler to take on fuel urgently needed to fill her nearly depleted bunkers. In preparation for this task, Platte's crew spent the predawn hours rigging the specialized gear that would soon be called upon to transfer thousands of tons of "navy special" fuel oil carried by the big ship (when fully loaded the Platte displaced almost as much as the Enterprise). As each ship came alongside in an unending progression that would last well into the night, a heaving line would be passed to the approaching ship followed in rapid succession by messengers, hawsers, a telephone line, and finally the fuel hoses that had to be secured before the pumps could be started.
It was dark by the time the Enterprise came alongside for her turn. No heavy ship had ever been fueled in the open sea at night, but the carrier had to have oil for the fast run-in. Smoothly and steadily, Capt. George Murry eased the carrier toward the Platte to a position close abreast "as if it were a summer noon in Long Island sound." The seamen and engineers did the rest. Below decks the "oil king" and his helpers on both ships directed the flow of oil from one tank to another as the two ships steamed side-by-side for five and a half hours. As the gap between the two vessels widened and contracted the topside crew tended the lines and hoses making sure that none parted, though ironically, other men stood by with axes to cut everything away in the event of enemy attack or other emergency.
Replenishing Enterprise's depleted bunkers or for that matter any large ship while under way at sea was, as it continues to be today, an exacting task that demands superb seamanship. The dynamic forces involved when a 30,000-ton (or larger) aircraft carrier and a 25,000-ton oiler are maneuvering at 8 to 12 knots within 50 feet of each other are difficult to comprehend or image. Yet the two vessels had to steam at identical speeds within 20 to 70 feet of one another for hours while a trickle of black oil flowed through 6-inch rubber fuel hoses suspended from saddles rigged to booms projecting over the oiler's side. Quick, skilled hands and precise judgment were necessary to keep the two ships separated. It may have looked easy, but it wasn't, and although collisions did not occur often, they could have disastrous effects. On one occasion, Kaskaskia lost every one of her portside booms and had to put into Pearl for emergency repairs after being sideswiped by the Yorktown."
The Enterpise took a little over 5 hours, again, in less then ideal conditions. Doesnt say how many barrels they pumped into her or if that also involved aviation fuel.
Last edited:
- 3
@Snagletooth
Thx for the work in your reply !
do you have an data about refueilng times from other navys too?
Thx for the work in your reply !
do you have an data about refueilng times from other navys too?
- 1
That would take a while and i'm not confident of the results. I do know both the Germans and Japanese a combination of good old fashion craning and what's called an Astern Line, which is basically one following the other and dragging a fuel line on a buoy behind it. The rear ships grabs it and they use that for fueling. It is safer then side fueling, but it is only usable for liquids (where as side line fueling, you can also exchange other supplies via zip line), and you can only do one ship at a time. Developed before WWI, this was common as capital ships were tasked with refueling their own escorts by this method.
So in the case of Japanese sorting, 4 CV's and a handfull of BB's mean several escorts could refuel simultaneously, but they did have to stop for any supplies beyond fuel. Capitals weren't exactly designed to be fuel pumps and many were hand operated pumps. even the pressure pumps were probably far from ideal compared to an oiler with designed and built high pressure hoses and pumps get the fuel out quickly.
The US kept their refueling system very close to the chest as they didn't want any possible adversaries gaining that advantage. So close I doubt they shared it with the British (who was still considered a possible adversary well into the 30's) until after the war started, but then the British weren't exactly incompetent and seem to remember them having a very similar system they developed on their own (im admittedly not very well versed in what the British were doing. Im a selfish American, lol). Even if they didn't develop and advanced system (Let's be honest, the British Navy in the 20's and 30's, until France fell, was very rarely far from a friendly port from England around the Horn to Australia and Hong Kong. The only really big gap was the Indian Ocean), they would have adopted the US system rather quickly.
I'll see what I can find, but outside of what type of systems they used, actual transfer times may be scarce. Im not a hard core WWII historian. I don't have piles of original documents lying around.
- 1
@Snagletooth
Nevermind - I just thought it would be nice to add a 3 step sea supply tech for a mod where we would need more data to compare.
Nevermind - I just thought it would be nice to add a 3 step sea supply tech for a mod where we would need more data to compare.
That's where you get shipping wrong. A well supplied large ship (not destroyers) can operate very far away for very long.
Consider that the germans could sink ships even in Australia, without bases nearby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_between_HMAS_Sydney_and_German_auxiliary_cruiser_Kormoran
About repairing, the americans had floating drydocks to repair anywhere in the pacific even the largest ships.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/mi...you-never-heard-about.html/attachment/016107d
Magellan's circumnavigation took 3 years. Modern Nuclear subs can remain in the sea for years. I'd bet ww2 ships would only be limited by fuel, and clearly a cruiser could store enough fuel to go to Australia and back.
Submarines also did Singapore -> Germany without refueling.
The americans surely wouldnt be prevented in anyway in ww2 from doing doomstacks. They had enough oilers to keep a constant flow of fuel from California to the Philiphines.
The only ships severely limited by fuel AFAIK were destroyers.
Also considers that all big fleets had oilers with them at all times, so they had literally a full ship worth of fuel just waiting to refuel them: No bases needed, the fuel is in the oiler already and you just need more oilers to supply the fleet oiler.
I didn't get anything wrong. I haven't advocated changing range on anything at all. I don't think you understand the post.