Are BB obsolete even in 1936?

[sterrius]

BB´s on game is mostly for the pacific.

Its very rare for a game where you find a Italy + germany +Vich France players that actually can force england to pull his weight and demand + 1 or 2 modern BB´s and a few CA´s to deal with their combined navy.

Japan either have to go BB/SHBB or CA´s to help cover their carriers and close the gap as USA start with a clear heavy ship advantage in numbers by 1936.
USA have to keep the advantage by building more BB`s/BC´s and CA´s responding to anything japan builds.

at same time japan have to keep ahead on Light Ships by stacking quality on them. (DD III and good LC´s).
and USA have to catch up and win by numbers as those old DDI are not gonna be enough to protect the heavy ships.

but since the change for 5 NIC´s. it became very hard to pull more than a few BB´s before 1941-42. Where the biggest naval battles are gonna happen.

 

[sterrius]

PS: Before we start, i do believe for japan you need more CA´s compared to BB´s. So you will not have more than 5-10 NIC´s on the ships below.

this is the new 1936 BB´s I would aim for the end of 1941-42.
I only recommend going for 1940 BB (And Eng III) if you rush the tech somehow to get it before 1939. (Both US and Jap have focus).
This way you can try early game to focus on small ships and use 1938-40 production to focus on Heavy Ships. Need some trys to adapt to this kind of building strategy specially because this can become quite a burden to your resources.

A SHBB with similar equipment would cost above 18.000IC. So you either go for 2 very slow and powerful SHBB´s or 3 of those BB´s.

You will need a 1919 and 1936 with Eng I and Armor I. This way in around 300 days you will have everything reffited.
In old heavy Ships with Eng 1 i recommend forgetting about speed and more focus on Firepower. Just around 15 knots and stay above 20 Light attack and 10 AA.

Thats why i focus more on speed with the new ones, 25 still give good dodge bonus and the old ones will take care of being all about firepower.

Left = Designer Stats
Right = Real Stats with 2 Japanese admirals giving Defense and Attack.

i put both japanese admirals. This kind benefits having more ships as the bonus can spread for all units.

techs it needs. Most of them can be rushed up with naval XP and finished by the end of 1940.
Only armor and at least the heavy gun tech are needed before Jan 1940 for refit.

-> 1936 BB Armor II (Can spend XP)
-> 1936 Heavy bullet (can Spend XP)
-> 1936 Light Bullet (Can Spend XP)
-> 1940 Heavy Gun (Only "expensive" tech)
-> 1936 Secondary turret II (Can be done quickly after you get all tech bonus)
-> 1940 secondary All Purpose TUrret (can be done in 150 or less days in 1939). Only tech you need to actually rush.
-> 1936, 38 and 40 Fire Control Methods. (Can Spend XP on all of them).

Recommended if possible around 1942 just before you engage the US fleet.
Fire control to improve reliability.
1942 Heavy Bullet so piercing can go to 44 and pierce BB´s armor III and give more boost to your dmg. This way only route US can go to avoid being pierced is going SHBB´s.

Refit takes around 320 days. Meaning everything will be ready by historical date of end of 1941.

 

[ppccctu]

BBs with large heavy attack stat are actually really good in areas, where you have layed mines.
If you compare two fleets of equal production cost:

1) first fleet consists of CLs with maximized light attack
2) second fleet consists of combined CL / BB force, with enough CLs to keep screening efficiency at 100%

Second fleet will always lose, if fighting in an area with no friendly mines, but will absolutely shred the first fleet if you have at least 750 mines there.
The same happens with equal production cost CL / DD fleet: torpedos won't get any opportunity to fire at capitals and screens won't be able to compete with light attack if there is not equal number of CLs on both sides.

So if you have enough time and resources to prepare the zone you are gonna be fighting in, it is viable to build BBs and lay mines.
Otherwise I would recommend CAs / CLs with as much light attack as you can obtain on them and torpedo destroyers.

I didn't really test any AA-heavy fleet builds vs NAVs, so maybe it is still more cost-efficient to build NAVs to fight fleets.

I just finished a game as France. I built up my land based air, and i was always careful, early on, to only risk my fleet when I could help protect it with land based air. Perhaps I was just lucky, or perhaps the AI didn't appreciate the value of land based air, but, in any case, I had great success, first against the Italians, and later against the British and Americans. The AI also seems to do a poor job of screening, and that helped me prevail too.

 

[Secret Master]

As late as October 1944 a battleship force managed to sail into gun-range of an enemy carrier force, during the battle of Leyte Gulf.

It's the exception that proves the rule.

The carriers in question were not fleet carriers, so it's not like they had tons of firepower to throw in the sky. Taffy 3 was assigned to provide support to the invasion while the main elements of the US fleet were chasing down Japanese ships. It's not like Taffy 3 was operating with any intention of facing enemy ships. I mean, sure, Yamato got some gunfire in, but even I could get some shots in at those weak escort carriers under those conditions.

Even more telling is what the Yamato did during that battle. She shot at the carriers, but then this happened:

Once she moved to dodge the torpedoes, she was out of the battle.

That was also one of the few times Yamato ever fired her guns in anger. The other time was when she loaded beehive rounds to try and shoot down the planes that sunk her.

BBs had their value during the war, but let's not pretend that Yamato's performance at Samar shows how useful they were against carriers.

In HOI4, BBs are more valuable, because you can hit enemy carriers with your own capital ships on the battle line if there are no enemy capital ships on the battle line to cover the carriers. I used to think this was a good idea, but I've cooled on it having seen it in action a number of times.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Yamato may have done poorly at Samar, but realistically that battle had so many failures and so many disparities that weighed against Japan that it isn't reasonable to assess battleship performance based on Japan's last throw of the dice.

1.) They thought they were facing fleet carriers ("Enterprise-class", which says something of their intel network) and heavy cruisers (Baltimore-class), so they fired nothing but AP shells for most of the battle (until some bright soul aboard one of the heavy cruisers realized something was wrong with these US heavy cruisers and started shooting HE at them). Shells big enough to tear out a boiler room without blowing up were simply passing through both destroyers and escort carriers, with the USS Johnston even managing to repair itself while hiding in a rain squall (a battleship shell had wrecked one of its boilers and killed its engines) before reengaging.
2.) Admiral Kurita broke his fleet's formation right off the bat by ordering a "general attack", which wasted the effectiveness of his 13 destroyers (which probably would have been able to torpedo several of the carriers early in the battle otherwise). They later struggled to reengage effectively due to the US "heavy cruisers" chasing them off.
3.) Yamato was the only ship with Radar in the Japanese fleet. Reengaging targets after evading was impossibly-difficult as the destroyers were maneuvering wildly, the heavy turrets were turning slow, the US destroyers were often too close, and as a result they struggled to keep any sort of lock on the destroyers. The carriers were easier to hit, but again the battleship shells were simply going through them.
4.) Yamato actually did end up reengaging, albeit pretty late.

tl;dr: Japan screwed itself over profoundly, both by tactical mistakes and also with its intelligence failure in identifying US ships.

Remember that Germany took its two battleships in 1940 against a British carrier, also escorted by 3 destroyers, and sank the whole task force without the British even getting a message away that they were under attack (one battleship took at least one torpedo hit, but they made it back safely after the other ran into a mine). The other navies of WWII proved that they can actually engage both destroyers and carriers with battleships, given the opportunity. Moreover, these were among the ONLY circumstances in the entire war where carriers were sailing unescorted. Even during the hunt for Bismarck, the HMS Victorious had a battlecruiser escort to ensure it could stay close to the Bismarck without risking getting itself sunk as well, and the US spent most of the war using its battleships as carrier escorts (with Spruance being famously criticized for holding his fleet too close to Saipan during the battle of the Philippine Sea and failing to effectively engage the Japanese fleet...note that this was immediately before Leyte Gulf, and Spruance had been worried about an "end run" by a Japanese surface force).

While I won't argue that battleships weren't inferior to carriers, just consider for a moment if you swapped the Japanese central force for an equivalent British, German, or American fleet, what would probably happen (granted, an equivalent German fleet is nearly the entire Kriegsmarine's surface fleet). Better fire control and ship identification would have left the escorting destroyers dead in a matter of minutes, and the whole fleet destroyed in short order. Moreover, a British or German fleet also probably would have remembered the whole attacking the landing forces bit that spawned the operation in the first place... (not the Americans unfortunately, who were as obsessed with killing the enemy carriers as the Japanese were; other than a few admirals like Spruance or Fletcher, at least).

Edit: grammar

 

[Harin]

I love to read Paul.Ketchum and Axe99 posts. I always learn something or get reminded of things forgotten.

I do agree that battleships have presence. When a battleship enters a naval space, lines of communications, convoys, and just about everything smaller and slower must detour around that space. They rarely engaged in WW1 or WW2 with their guns, but they were always engaging with their presence. I suspect that was their main strength.

On the other hand, the carriers kinetically engaged constantly and aggressively. They did not sit around. They were so versatile, there were always some mission they could perform, from ferrying planes, raiding land, hunting subs, hunting surface ships, supporting/covering invasions, if there was a naval mission to perform, it was rare that a carrier could not provide support for it. A battleship could do little unless it first had some relief from enemy air.

In WW1, ships in a battle fleet operated under the umbrella of the battleships' big guns. In WW2 the battleship operated under the umbrella of carrier or land based aircraft. The primacy most likely shifted from battleship to carrier over the course of WW2.

Debating about the value of battleships versus carriers still continues. I spend way to much of my time reading news and I still see the occasional article about the potential of battleships with hundreds of long range missile launchers, replacing carriers. I think Axe99 is correct, that ship missiles retired the big gun battleship for good. If those missiles are able to out range and out perform carrier aircraft, then in the future, the carrier, as we know it today, may also be retired. I have read how some think those large flat decks and hanger spaces could be converted into a field of over a thousand missile launchers. I guess we could rename aircraft carriers into missile carriers then, but we are not there yet. The flexibility of human flown or controlled air craft and drones is still a powerful force, today.

 

[Axe99]

In WW1, ships in a battle fleet operated under the umbrella of the battleships' big guns. In WW2 the battleship operated under the umbrella of carrier or land based aircraft. The primacy most likely shifted from battleship to carrier over the course of WW2.

Thanks for your kind words I try and make sure everything I write is either backed up, or clearly labelled as the possible errant thoughts of a lunatic .

On that - even in WW1, battleships needed screening from both submarine and destroyer torpedo attacks. The locomotive torpedo was the weapon that put an end to a big line of big ships being the only counter to another big line of big ships (and it also put paid to close blockade as well) - and it was the torpedo that saved the German fleet at Jutland. WW2 didn't change the need to screen BBs, but it added in the need for them to be screened against aircraft as well (although BBs did 'chance their arm' and operate without air cover, under enemy air attack, on more than a few occasions successfully, although they were also punished severely for it on others). But the aircraft carriers also needed their screens against enemy surface forces (just ask poor old Glorious, or the lucky-but-would-rather-have-not-had-to-take-on-the-Yamato Taffy 3), so there was a bit of give-and-take going on.

That said, there is definitely no question that the core of a battle fleet by about mid-1942 revolved around the aircraft carrier.

As an aside, it's easy to forget (hopefully I'm not forgetting any of them!) that aircraft sank 6.0 BBs/BCs at sea in WW2 (Prince of Wales, Repulse, Roma, Musashi, Yamato, with Bismarck and Hiei as two 0.5's shared with surface actions) - coincidentally (assuming I haven't had a shocker) the same as surface actions between capital ships (Hood, Scharnhorst, Kirishima, Yamashiro, Fuso and Bismarck and Hiei as two 0.5's shared with air) - so despite the far shorter range of a BB/BC main armament, they actually did as much 'capital ship sinking' as aircraft did (at sea - it's a bit unfair to count BBs/BCs bombed in harbour as they're stationary, and in more than a few cases weren't even putting up much in the way of AA). On the other hand, what's often not mentioned nearly as much is the sheer number of warships sunk by submarines, which although they were no good for a fleet action or much in the way of sea control, were able to exert a phenomenal 'attritive' force that caused substantial difficulties for most of the major navies.

What never happened, but could have made the discussion far more complex, was that two fleets with equal capabilities in aircraft, pilots, AA and radar-directed fighter control met - in this situation, it's not unlikely that the aircraft of both sides would have been unable to land decisive blows (iirc - and I might not - no fleet with effective radar-directed fighter control of carrier-based fighter aircraft in the fleet was put out of action in WW2, and that includes the likes of Pedestal, or the air battle off Formosa, both of which involved large numbers of aircraft attempting to attack the fleets in question). Carrier battles went through carrier aircraft very quickly (and carriers only carried enough ordnance for a limited number of sorties - sometimes as few as 3-4), and a situation like this could have left the fleet with less surface firepower as the one yielding sea control. It's all a bit theorycrafting though, due to Japan's carrier air forces being in somewhat rough shape by the time the US had its fighter-control ducks in a row.

Edit: Thanks to the good Paul.Ketcham for reminding me about Hiei - the above has been updated

Debating about the value of battleships versus carriers still continues. I spend way to much of my time reading news and I still see the occasional article about the potential of battleships with hundreds of long range missile launchers, replacing carriers. I think Axe99 is correct, that ship missiles retired the big gun battleship for good. If those missiles are able to out range and out perform carrier aircraft, then in the future, the carrier, as we know it today, may also be retired. I have read how some think those large flat decks and hanger spaces could be converted into a field of over a thousand missile launchers. I guess we could rename aircraft carriers into missile carriers then, but we are not there yet. The flexibility of human flown or controlled air craft and drones is still a powerful force, today.

Then there are the people that talk of laser-based weapons disabling missiles and aircraft alike, bring back the idea of a large, armoured ship with a large power source and powerful lasers (Note, I've no idea how realistic this is, I've just heard it spoken of).

 

[Secret Master]

and it was the torpedo that saved the German fleet at Jutland.

Jellicoe's decision not to pursue at the conclusion of Jutland, while derided in some quarters, was the right answer. Had the dreadnoughts sailed over a line of German subs (or in range of a bunch of concealed/sneaking torpedo boats), the damage could have been catastrophic. It was also stated policy before the battle to decline pursuit, so he was also following naval directives agreed upon ahead of time. So, he did the right thing.

Because if I had been at Jutland as the Germans, I would have deliberately made a feinted reteat much earlier in the battle and tried to drag the British over submarines, not as a retreat, but as an offensive baller move. Because that's how I roll.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

As an aside, it's easy to forget (hopefully I'm not forgetting any of them!) that aircraft sank 5.5 BBs/BCs at sea in WW2 (Prince of Wales, Repulse, Roma, Musashi, Yamato, with Bismarck as the 0.5) - coincidentally (assuming I haven't had a shocker) the same as surface actions between capital ships (Hood, Scharnhorst, Kirishima, Yamashiro, Fuso and Bismarck as the 0.5) - so despite the far shorter range of a BB/BC main armament, they actually did as much 'capital ship sinking' as aircraft did (at sea - it's a bit unfair to count BBs/BCs bombed in harbour as they're stationary, and in more than a few cases weren't even putting up much in the way of AA). On the other hand, what's often not mentioned nearly as much is the sheer number of warships sunk by submarines, which although they were no good for a fleet action or much in the way of sea control, were able to exert a phenomenal 'attritive' force that caused substantial difficulties for most of the major navies.

Only one I remember offhand that you missed is the Hiei, which was also sunk by aircraft although it was crippled at the time (very low speed).

 

[Harin]

Thanks for your kind words I try and make sure everything I write is either backed up, or clearly labelled as the possible errant thoughts of a lunatic .

On that - even in WW1, battleships needed screening from both submarine and destroyer torpedo attacks. The locomotive torpedo was the weapon that put an end to a big line of big ships being the only counter to another big line of big ships (and it also put paid to close blockade as well) - and it was the torpedo that saved the German fleet at Jutland. WW2 didn't change the need to screen BBs, but it added in the need for them to be screened against aircraft as well (although BBs did 'chance their arm' and operate without air cover, under enemy air attack, on more than a few occasions successfully, although they were also punished severely for it on others). But the aircraft carriers also needed their screens against enemy surface forces (just ask poor old Glorious, or the lucky-but-would-rather-have-not-had-to-take-on-the-Yamato Taffy 3), so there was a bit of give-and-take going on.

That said, there is definitely no question that the core of a battle fleet by about mid-1942 revolved around the aircraft carrier.

As an aside, it's easy to forget (hopefully I'm not forgetting any of them!) that aircraft sank 5.5 BBs/BCs at sea in WW2 (Prince of Wales, Repulse, Roma, Musashi, Yamato, with Bismarck as the 0.5) - coincidentally (assuming I haven't had a shocker) the same as surface actions between capital ships (Hood, Scharnhorst, Kirishima, Yamashiro, Fuso and Bismarck as the 0.5) - so despite the far shorter range of a BB/BC main armament, they actually did as much 'capital ship sinking' as aircraft did (at sea - it's a bit unfair to count BBs/BCs bombed in harbour as they're stationary, and in more than a few cases weren't even putting up much in the way of AA). On the other hand, what's often not mentioned nearly as much is the sheer number of warships sunk by submarines, which although they were no good for a fleet action or much in the way of sea control, were able to exert a phenomenal 'attritive' force that caused substantial difficulties for most of the major navies.

What never happened, but could have made the discussion far more complex, was that two fleets with equal capabilities in aircraft, pilots, AA and radar-directed fighter control met - in this situation, it's not unlikely that the aircraft of both sides would have been unable to land decisive blows (iirc - and I might not - no fleet with effective radar-directed fighter control of carrier-based fighter aircraft in the fleet was put out of action in WW2, and that includes the likes of Pedestal, or the air battle off Formosa, both of which involved large numbers of aircraft attempting to attack the fleets in question). Carrier battles went through carrier aircraft very quickly (and carriers only carried enough ordnance for a limited number of sorties - sometimes as few as 3-4), and a situation like this could have left the fleet with less surface firepower as the one yielding sea control. It's all a bit theorycrafting though, due to Japan's carrier air forces being in somewhat rough shape by the time the US had its fighter-control ducks in a row.



Then there are the people that talk of laser-based weapons disabling missiles and aircraft alike, bring back the idea of a large, armoured ship with a large power source and powerful lasers (Note, I've no idea how realistic this is, I've just heard it spoken of).

What an informative post. Thanks so much.

You brought up the torpedoes at Jutland. While I have no historical facts, your mention brought back a memory for me. When I was younger, to young to drive, I had a an older friend who joined a war gaming club. On weekends they would use the upstairs of the game shop to recreate navy and land battles with models. One day I was allowed to come and join in a Jutland game. Since it was such a large battle, all the tables were put aside and the entire floor was used for just the one game that day.

Everyone brought their own models, all to some scale that was popular back then. As the game played out there had to be close to 100 models on the floor. Since I did not know the rules I was given a torpedo boat and was told it represented several (I cannot remember how many). My main job was to help find the German fleet and then later to work with others to launch a coordinated torpedo attack.

I have no idea how realistic their rules were, but there were manuals all over the floor, rulers, strings, circular devices for ship turning radius', some angular devices that I think were for fields of fire, and lots of flat pieces that represented where ships may or may not be. With almost a dozen guys playing, they sure took it seriously. One thing I remember well, is when the first German battleships were spotted. To see those flat pieces get replaced with those model battleships changed everything about that floor space. Even in miniature form, their presence was immediate and threatening. We spent over an hour trying to locate them, but when we did I did not feel the thrill of discovery, like I thought I would. I felt like...well we are in trouble now.

While the battleships fought it out, us smaller ships kept trying to get past each other to launch torpedoes, but you discover you cannot just sail through. At close range, those screen ships can tear your screen ship to pieces, so it was constant maneuvering. I eventually got sunk, but if the rules were even close to accurate, I can understand why the idea of battleships will not die. When they perfect lasers and extreme long range anti-ship missiles the battleship may very well come sailing back into our lives.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Then there are the people that talk of laser-based weapons disabling missiles and aircraft alike, bring back the idea of a large, armoured ship with a large power source and powerful lasers (Note, I've no idea how realistic this is, I've just heard it spoken of).

As long as we not talking modern cruise missiles (which are pretty hard to detect; and likely to carry nuclear payload against a sizeable fleet), should be realistic. And if it ever comes to that, I doubt that anyone will be left to care how good the concept really was

 

[Axe99]

Jellicoe's decision not to pursue at the conclusion of Jutland, while derided in some quarters, was the right answer. Had the dreadnoughts sailed over a line of German subs (or in range of a bunch of concealed/sneaking torpedo boats), the damage could have been catastrophic. It was also stated policy before the battle to decline pursuit, so he was also following naval directives agreed upon ahead of time. So, he did the right thing.

Because if I had been at Jutland as the Germans, I would have deliberately made a feinted reteat much earlier in the battle and tried to drag the British over submarines, not as a retreat, but as an offensive baller move. Because that's how I roll.

Oh aye - please don't consider my comment to suggest that Jellicoe did the wrong thing - I'm firmly of the view that Jutland was a British victory (naval warfare is about sea control, and Jutland only reinforced that for the Allies) and that chasing after the Hocheseeflotte in an attempt for a second Trafalgar could have caused all sorts of trouble (there were no shortages of minefields on the way back to Wilhelmshaven (I think that's where they were stationed, going from memory) as well).

Also, I love how you roll

Only one I remember offhand that you missed is the Hiei, which was also sunk by aircraft although it was crippled at the time (very low speed).

Dag nab it, I knew there'd be one. Although I'd actually chalk that up to a 0.5 surface, 0.5 air (it wouldn't have been sitting there, disabled, if it hadn't been shredded by surface gunfire first, although unlike the other capital ships, it was only 8in cruiser gunfire and smaller - again somewhat optimistically going from memory). Thanks for mentioning it, and will edit that post

To see those flat pieces get replaced with those model battleships changed everything about that floor space. Even in miniature form, their presence was immediate and threatening. We spent over an hour trying to locate them, but when we did I did not feel the thrill of discovery, like I thought I would. I felt like...well we are in trouble now.

That is a super-cool memory - I wish I had your friends when I was younger .

 

[Secret Master]

please don't consider my comment to suggest that Jellicoe did the wrong thing

I don't. But I suspect some people might have read your statement and been like "What's he on about? What torpedoes were being used in massive quantities at Jutland?"

There's also a lot of people who view naval battles in WW2 along the lines of what they see in World of Warships: torpedoes not having the potential to cripple capital ships in one hit, insufficient screening elements, weird use of RADAR, and so on. It's not a bad game, but there are times when it can skew your view of the technologies of the war if you don't know better.

 

[egslim]

That said, there is definitely no question that the core of a battle fleet by about mid-1942 revolved around the aircraft carrier.

At Guadalcanal the US employed its carriers during daytime, withdrawing them for the night when the IJN sent its battlecruisers and cruisers.
Ultimately the night battles between surface gun combatants, with heavy attrition on both sides, decided the question of naval superiority around the Solomon islands.

It's really about combined arms - a WWII carrier contributes long range striking power, a battleship staying power under all conditions. Both are needed for naval superiority, once this is established the navy's role shifts towards power projection where the carrier really comes into its own.

To complicate the discussion, radar, radar directed fire control and proximity fuses against aircraft all have a major impact on combat capability. And mid-war onward the Allies developed a crushing superiority in this area. For example, when Duke of York engaged Scharnhorst in the middle of a snowstorm her very first 14" salvo hit and disabled the forward turrets. The 5.25" dual purpose guns combined with the Mk38 fire control and proximity fuses were able to 'snipe' Japanese aircraft at very long range.

Meanwhile, on the Japanese side only Yamato was equipped with a radar set at Leyte Gulf and the Great Mariana Turkey shoot proved the qualitative inferiority of their naval air arm.
It's hard to determine the actual combat effectiveness of a weapon system when the enemy has fallen so far behind.

 

[Harin]

At Guadalcanal the US employed its carriers during daytime, withdrawing them for the night when the IJN sent its battlecruisers and cruisers.
Ultimately the night battles between surface gun combatants, with heavy attrition on both sides, decided the question of naval superiority around the Solomon islands.

It's really about combined arms - a WWII carrier contributes long range striking power, a battleship staying power under all conditions. Both are needed for naval superiority, once this is established the navy's role shifts towards power projection where the carrier really comes into its own.

To complicate the discussion, radar, radar directed fire control and proximity fuses against aircraft all have a major impact on combat capability. And mid-war onward the Allies developed a crushing superiority in this area. For example, when Duke of York engaged Scharnhorst in the middle of a snowstorm her very first 14" salvo hit and disabled the forward turrets. The 5.25" dual purpose guns combined with the Mk38 fire control and proximity fuses were able to 'snipe' Japanese aircraft at very long range.

Meanwhile, on the Japanese side only Yamato was equipped with a radar set at Leyte Gulf and the Great Mariana Turkey shoot proved the qualitative inferiority of their naval air arm.
It's hard to determine the actual combat effectiveness of a weapon system when the enemy has fallen so far behind.

You do a great job expanding the view on this subject. When asked, "Which is better, the battleship or the carrier?", it is easy to immediately think in terms of a battleship fleet fighting a carrier fleet in broad daylight and clear skies. Such a simple scenario is not realistic. The battleship fleet would simply not present itself when such advantage rest with the carriers. If we change the weather to night time and storms, the carrier fleet would not present itself while the battleships have such an advantage. As you remind me, there was a whole war going on out there, night and day, clear skies and snow storms, open seas and close to shore.

In the enormity of the global war, I suspect that an admiral would much rather be confronted with the threat of battleships alone, or carriers alone, instead of the dangerous combination of battleships and carriers together.

Personally, I think the actual results of WW2 skew my feelings (not facts) about this subject. Carrier fleets in the Pacific dominated later in the war. But as you alluded, does that domination come solely from carriers being better than battleships, or was the Allies' advantage in technology and production the true dominating force. If the Japanese had Allied RADAR and proximity fuses, Allied carrier usefulness would have dropped dramatically, as the plane losses would have been so much higher. The number of all-plane attacks a carrier could make would probably drop from four to six all the way to one or two. It would also allow their battleships to range much farther away from air cover.

Like most subjects worth talking about, both sides are close to 100% right, just not in 100% of the circumstances. That may be why, even today, most warships still have a gun mount and manually operated machine guns. The variety of circumstances prevents one solution for all problems.

 

[Old Ladies]

I have had great success with SHBB as Germany. Though it takes so long to build them I don't think it is worth it but against the AI they can do a huge amount of damage. I rushed SHBB tech and tried to get all the best techs possible and then focus on the passive bonuses like better shells. I build 2 of them and with enough screens those 2 ships with land based naval bombers sunk the entire allied naval forces in the Atlantic. It is crazy as they would sink CVs and destroy any Allied BBs.

I don't think it would be effective for Japan as there is just too much of the pacific ocean to patrol while German only needs to guard 1 or 2 tiles to take the UK out.

Multiplayer I don't think that would work.

 

[parkerg12]

Combined Naval arms was the real victor of the Carrier / BB debate. A carrier by itself is exposed, but when it is protected by components of submarines, destroyers, cruisers and BBs they can operate with far more freedom. With this freedom Allied forces where able to exploit the Axis weakness against air power. And when an opponent has a weakness you play to it. Also people forget how massive modern Destroyers and Cruisers are in comparison to WW2 era ships. While the big guns have gone away, they have been replaced with cruise missiles, but are still quiet large ships (heck they even mounted some Missiles on the Iowa Classes, because why not?.

 

[Axe99]

To complicate the discussion, radar, radar directed fire control and proximity fuses against aircraft all have a major impact on combat capability. And mid-war onward the Allies developed a crushing superiority in this area. For example, when Duke of York engaged Scharnhorst in the middle of a snowstorm her very first 14" salvo hit and disabled the forward turrets. The 5.25" dual purpose guns combined with the Mk38 fire control and proximity fuses were able to 'snipe' Japanese aircraft at very long range.

Aye, absolutely, good post That's what I was getting at when I was talking about two sides with late-war fighter direction, sensors, aircraft and AA tech having the potential to run their aircraft down.

Only minor point I'd make was that (iirc - head's a bit fuzzy, I may have forgotten a ship) the only pairing of the Mk 37 director and the 5.25in Mk I on a BB was on Vanguard, which was a bit late for the Pacific War (one of the British AA cruisers also had a Mk 37 installed, but I can't recall what it was armed with, and I think it was the US 5in/38 - but can't remember the name of the ship). The Mk 38 was a US low-angle fire control system installed on the North Carolina Class and more modern BBs, as well as the Alaska class so-heavy-they-get-called-battle cruisers.

Your general point is spot on though, in that effective radar, remote-power control and mounts that could train and elevate fast enough, along with proximity fuses, made for very effective AA platforms .

 

[Secret Master]

If we change the weather to night time and storms

Funny HOI4 story from MP:

A couple of years ago, the US entered the war on time and took over escort duties for the Arctic route. The US player put carriers in that fleet (the surface elements of the KM had been seen in Norway) out of an abundance of caution. It was January of 1942.

The KM sortied out for a short naval battle, and the US player was swearing at his CVs in chat. Why wouldn't the CVs launch planes? Why was HOI4 such a buggy mess?

After the battle, we realized that the Arctic night was in effect at that time, so there were literally no daylight hours during which the carriers could operate their planes.

Lesson learned: HOI4 carriers don't launch planes at night, and at certain latitudes, it's always night during some parts of the year. Send those carriers somewhere, anywhere, closer to the equator.

 

[Harin]

Funny HOI4 story from MP:

A couple of years ago, the US entered the war on time and took over escort duties for the Arctic route. The US player put carriers in that fleet (the surface elements of the KM had been seen in Norway) out of an abundance of caution. It was January of 1942.

The KM sortied out for a short naval battle, and the US player was swearing at his CVs in chat. Why wouldn't the CVs launch planes? Why was HOI4 such a buggy mess?

After the battle, we realized that the Arctic night was in effect at that time, so there were literally no daylight hours during which the carriers could operate their planes.

Lesson learned: HOI4 carriers don't launch planes at night, and at certain latitudes, it's always night during some parts of the year. Send those carriers somewhere, anywhere, closer to the equator.

You guys are always teaching me something new! I did not know the Arctic night was in the game. Does it show up on the map? There are so many invisible details in the game I have to catch up on. The potential of this game is amazing.