...

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[liaxelot]

not stupid ! i m agree

in any case whatever the system chosen a dynamic campaign is needed, with the main objective of logistical support for the forces on the ground

because in all conflicts of history war at sea has been a struggle to maintain supply routes!

eccept landing operations, warship duels are only  propaganda, and panache for the glory

the real sinews of war at sea is losgistic support specialy if the carrier aicraft are not in the game !

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by liaxelot

[James Cornelius]

You're absolutely not wrong, but in a way, too right: there is a reason that major fleet battles of the era were never planned to take place far from their home areas, and that is because it was not inherently possible to have sufficient logistics to maintain a large battle fleet so far from home waters and their supply ports. A raiding fleet, yes, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

 

Consider one of the primary reasons that the imperial/colonial powers of the day had bases on ever far flung island across the globe - it was for resupply. 

 

So, as far as raiding fleets go, such as what the Germans tried to do in the beginning of WWI, I think you're absolutely spot on. But, no logistic train was good enough to keep a large battle fleet at sea for months. The closest a fleet ever came to that feat was the Russians in 1904-1905 when they sent the Baltic Fleet to relieve Port Arthur. And look how well that turned out for them.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis