"Naval warfare is boring"
Before you go any further, you ought to read this. As I understand it, there is a general opinion that modern naval warfare is "missile spam" and is boring. This could not be more contrary to the truth. Like all war, modern naval warfare has its own emotions. Sailors on their first combat mission feel fear, too. Tension builds up in operations rooms the same way it does anywhere else in the military. Wives and girlfriends miss their brave boys in the Navy the same way they do in the Army. Death at sea is no more or less tragic than death anywhere else. Those who say that modern naval combat is 'boring to write about' have evidently never been on a sinking ship.
Modern naval warfare has its own heroes and its own personalities. On 21st May, 1982, HMS Ardent was hit by an Argentine bomb and began to go under. Able Seaman John E Dillon found himself trapped under heavy debris. He freed himself, and whilst exposing himself to severe heat with no protection, freed another sailor and carried him out of the ship through smoke and fire, suffering severe burns to his body. He was awarded the George Cross.
On 2nd May, 1982, the Argentine cruiser ARA Belgrano was hit by two torpedoes fired by nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror. 323 Conscripts died in the cold ocean of the South Atlantic, a tragedy that still provokes intense feeling in some parts of Argentine and British society. When we write about war we shouldn't just seek to emulate the script of Saving Private Ryan. Real war is not a Hollywood film. It is not Halo 3. It is not a hundred missiles on a screen. It is a tragic affair that results in the death of young men, a course of action that can only be pursued in the most justified and extreme cases.
Nothing is intrinsically boring to write about. I agree that naval warfare should not be written as "I fired 5000 missiles, post losses." Like other forms of warfare it should seek to expose the feelings and emotions of the men and women bound up in it.
The men and women who have served their country onboard warships of all nations have had careers worthy of attention.
Modern naval warfare has its own heroes and its own personalities. On 21st May, 1982, HMS Ardent was hit by an Argentine bomb and began to go under. Able Seaman John E Dillon found himself trapped under heavy debris. He freed himself, and whilst exposing himself to severe heat with no protection, freed another sailor and carried him out of the ship through smoke and fire, suffering severe burns to his body. He was awarded the George Cross.
On 2nd May, 1982, the Argentine cruiser ARA Belgrano was hit by two torpedoes fired by nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror. 323 Conscripts died in the cold ocean of the South Atlantic, a tragedy that still provokes intense feeling in some parts of Argentine and British society. When we write about war we shouldn't just seek to emulate the script of Saving Private Ryan. Real war is not a Hollywood film. It is not Halo 3. It is not a hundred missiles on a screen. It is a tragic affair that results in the death of young men, a course of action that can only be pursued in the most justified and extreme cases.
Nothing is intrinsically boring to write about. I agree that naval warfare should not be written as "I fired 5000 missiles, post losses." Like other forms of warfare it should seek to expose the feelings and emotions of the men and women bound up in it.
The men and women who have served their country onboard warships of all nations have had careers worthy of attention.
Mandatory reading
Then how?
So you've just read the link above. You're baffled. What should a naval RP look like?
It should be focused principally on the "reconnaissance" part of the battle, gathering data and the maneouvring of forces, and also the engagement of aircraft in the forward battle zone. After the Battle of the First Salvo one can go all-out, but before that, an example formula for an RP might be something like this:
1 - Post arrival of forces
2 - Post reconnaissance ops, sending out forward aircraft, receiving information from submarines, satellites, etc
3 - More recce based on enemy movements, collate information
4 - Engage enemy with aircraft or fwd pickets
5 - One side launches first salvo
6 - POST LOSSES !
7 - Rinse and repeat except with much much smaller time between attacks
Example posts:
Basic intelligence, although a bit long
Good introductory post
It should be focused principally on the "reconnaissance" part of the battle, gathering data and the maneouvring of forces, and also the engagement of aircraft in the forward battle zone. After the Battle of the First Salvo one can go all-out, but before that, an example formula for an RP might be something like this:
1 - Post arrival of forces
2 - Post reconnaissance ops, sending out forward aircraft, receiving information from submarines, satellites, etc
3 - More recce based on enemy movements, collate information
4 - Engage enemy with aircraft or fwd pickets
5 - One side launches first salvo
6 - POST LOSSES !
7 - Rinse and repeat except with much much smaller time between attacks
Example posts:
Basic intelligence, although a bit long
Good introductory post