New large tender.

[Carthaginian]

He learned what I wanted and needed from those actions. If you can decipher his coded urgent report, you are more than welcome to the actual lessons learned.

The CSA doesn't have anything impressive in the way of code-breaking tech.
As an IC matter, I thus do not decode messages... even as an OoC thing (of course, my job, wife, personal life, etc also have a bearing on why I don't bother).

As far as 'we learned the lesson from one or two encounters a couple of days ago from one man's opinion'... well, that's about as far-fetched as efficiency in government. As a military man myself, I'd have to say that you don't really understand how military tactics develop... meaning incrementally 99.44% of the time- and generally painfully slow after several repeats of the same mistake.

Unless your admiral is an absolute totalitarian military dictator with complete control over the entirety of R&D, production and design for the entire military, you're looking at a 'lesson' that might take several more battles and almost a decade to process.

Remember, it only took the Japanese EIGHT YEARS to go from their first successful naval aviation strike missions to the construction of the Hosho.

1. You don't have the actual critical information I now have about Masirah, Cart.
2. The expedition was a near disaster that really shook up the Dutch military and political establishment as to how close run it was. It will change a nation's assumptions the way other military disasters have in history.
3. Admiraal Schoepen is not your military dictator, but is a proven battle leader and a validated military strategist who carried out a suicide mission with incredible success, his word carries a lot of weight in den Hague now-especially with NvR. 
4.

EDIT: If this is a ship meant for the late 20's, that's not too far fetched. But giving it a laydown of 1920 makes it look like it's ready to be laid down tomorrow. Hosho is still a real flattop.

Think more along the lines of the first refit of HMS Furious.

I'm Dutch, not Norman. I think cheap and simple. 
=================================================

I'm still wondering how Aden had anything that could translate into naval aviation.

I'm not going to tell you. You'll have to learn the way I did.

Foxy, your admirals weren't paying attention to their situations during your battles. Mine did.

Cheap and simple would mean that you take the cheapest route for a testbed- either a seaplane tender or a conversion... not a purpose-built carrier.

You're trying to build a ship you have no real reason to have without having a reason.

Again, one battle does not change the entirety of military thought.
The only reason that I can think of something like that happening was Pearl Harbor- we shifted from a battleship-based fleet to a carrier/sub based fleet because there were no battleships left!!! However, if you'll notice, naval rifles were still the weapon of choice in the Atlantic for the first few years of the war; aircraft were just a side-line till after the Bismark was sank, and then only because battleships are ineffective against submarines.

[damocles]

And the point of that for people not RPing at all is, what exactly?

I am RPing. The Dutch have a security mania.

I have no idea what or where this battle even happened, much less what lessons it might have given.  Nor who was involved.

Please note what you just said when you read my replies?

Sure people and nations can have their secrets, but generally not at the cost of the game being fun, nor to the point of aggravating people who are attempting to understand how one nation is building something that it should not be building on a logical progressive level of technological and tactical knowledge.

The problem is that the participants have commented elsewhere on lessons leaned and that those comments should have been noted-especially in the Brandenberg lessons learned.  

Part of the problem might be the use of a "future" design as the basis for the comcept rather than something that looks more in period with the flaws usually associated with early naval aviation.

Laid down 1920. What was futuristic here?  Holland has two things now going for her, some recent combat experience (Siam disaster, and now the Aden and Masirah naval operations), and an active program of research where she has to lay down something to test certain ideas she has, now born from that combat experience. She had already begun aviation research from zero starting in 1916 after the Siam war, acquiring one Zeppelin, some fighters, and the Luchtmacht because of lessons learned. Seaplane and ship takeoff and landing research of wheeled aircraft from test ships began urgently in 1918 as a result of naval war lessons developed, and is now 3/6 developed. Japan's 1915 seaplanes tech was bought in 1919 as soon as a vendor could be secured. Holland had an interest in the aviation problems she faced before the Aden debacle, the interests are quite intense now.    

WesWorld's Chile started having carriers built for them in the late 1920s and early 1930s after building a small seaplane cruiser, buying a few floatplane carriers, and later setting up a land based training base with a runway the shape of the proposed carrier's deck with proper landing arrangements to train the pilots how the land using hooks and a short landing area.  They however were relying on the experience of a foreign power for the design and construction for the carrier...so they were not starting from scratch.

See above for where the Dutch line of development began and why.

]The other question is more of purpose...same question I asked about the Chinese Carrier.  What is the carrier's role in the Dutch Fleet?  How do they see themselves using it with the relatively short ranged and flimsy aircraft of the early 1920s?  It's historical roll was simply a scout unit for the Battle Line.  Something that could extend the range and area the fleet could scout for enemy units and to assist in spotting for over the horizon shooting for the battleships if they didn't have a float-plane handy.

The question answers itself. As I repeated again and again, things happened during Fleet Problem IV that as a player that I now know that are uniquely Dutch experience, that I am not going to tell you. If you want to know what happened and why the Dutch are exercised about naval aviation, you are going to have to figure it out from a disaster, much as I did, after I was clobbered.    

The Offensive operations for a carrier was something that came up later as the planes got better (aside from the Royal Navies wild idea to sink the at port High Sea's Fleet in 1919 using a combined sea and land-based air strike using the new carriers as part of the force...but this attack never happened).

Look at the artwork and the available Dutch aircraft and ask if KMS Vodan is advanced?

D.

[Ithekro]

Aside from bad luck (getting rammed in low visability) your force did nothing wrong that couldn't be fixed by either floatplanes on your armored frigates (also might help with spotting if the guns have the range for shelling targets deep inland) or a seaplane carrier to launch some eyes in the sky to your force would possibly have know they were being shadowed or that the enemy base was abandoned before your force got to the mine field on a later date...but if the goal was to put troops ashore, the minefield would still be an issue anyway.

Unless there is something glaringly missing from the battle report that was purely a Dutch experiance.

[Walter]

also might help with spotting if the guns have the range for shelling targets deep inland

Would you not need the 1918 RF tech for that? As I see it, you can dump planes on your ships before that, but you need that tech to be able to use the planes for spotting.

[miketr]

Hosho had ALL sorts of design problems and to be blunt was in many ways a failure.

Look at this.





No full length flight deck, multiple flying off decks.

If people build a carrier or any type of aviation ship right now the total air group should be 10 or under most likely float planes before flying off decks but most of what I am seeing right now is huge amounts of hindsight designs.  I am not saying people are cheating I am saying that people lack the knowledge of how things went.

THIS is what people should be building

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_%281914%29

Ignore the game date compared to real world date our tech compared to historic is less and this was the first war were aircraft actually mattered.  I agree for a large amount of interest and designs but they should be of the correct type.  More tender than strike carrier, slow speeds, limited facilities and very small air groups.

Michael

EDIT: SORRY I didn't look at the source picture size

[Desertfox]

I agree, same with AA armaments.

But what about the case of the Swiss?

I've had ships sunk by aircraft in two wars, I had a fleet savaged by an aerial attack, I've had an experimental carrier for 10 years now, one that proved to be worth its weight in gold (despite how crappy it really was), I've stuck floatplanes and blimps into destroyers, and plan to stick single use aircraft on auxiliaries. If anything I can build a considerable case for NS.

I'll agree that Hosho was not a good carrier and had its considerable problems. I wouldn't expect my 6k ton design to be any better.

[Walter]

... and it is so easy to use the smaller pics of wikipedia. :)

[miketr]

I'll agree that Hosho was not a good carrier and had its considerable problems. I wouldn't expect my 6k ton design to be any better.

If you don't have double hanger decks you could avoid much of her problems but still we should be having more misses right now than hits with aircraft designs.

Michael

[Walter]

EDIT: SORRY I didn't look at the source picture size

No doubt caused by the fact that the system resizes the pic so it fits into your window which is a bit annoying. I always check the pic sizes given on wiki to determine whether I should use the original version or the small version.

[damocles]

Aside from bad luck (getting rammed in low visability) your force did nothing wrong that couldn't be fixed by either floatplanes on your armored frigates (also might help with spotting if the guns have the range for shelling targets deep inland) or a seaplane carrier to launch some eyes in the sky to your force would possibly have know they were being shadowed or that the enemy base was abandoned before your force got to the mine field on a later date...but if the goal was to put troops ashore, the minefield would still be an issue anyway.

Unless there is something glaringly missing from the battle report that was purely a Dutch experiance.

Yes, there was.

D.

[damocles]

Aside from bad luck (getting rammed in low visability) your force did nothing wrong that couldn't be fixed by either floatplanes on your armored frigates (also might help with spotting if the guns have the range for shelling targets deep inland) or a seaplane carrier to launch some eyes in the sky to your force would possibly have know they were being shadowed or that the enemy base was abandoned before your force got to the mine field on a later date...but if the goal was to put troops ashore, the minefield would still be an issue anyway.

Unless there is something glaringly missing from the battle report that was purely a Dutch experiance.

Yes, there was.
================================
As for the carrier issue, I think I have thrashed that one out. There will not be miltiple decks on the first true Dutch aircraft tender, because those bugs will be worked out this way on this piece of junk:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=4967.msg62749#msg62749 

D.

[Carthaginian]

Now THAT is a 1920 experimental carrier!