Battleships - The Laughter of The High Seas

[unmerged(15623)]

Väinö I:

1. You have to remember that a WW2 carrier didn't really carry a full squadron of torpedo bombers. They had to carry a mix of recon planes, fighter planes, dive bombers (which tended to not have the ranges people quote about carrier battles), and torpedo bombers. So 15 Swordfish was pretty much a full air strike for a CV at long range.

2. Yes, I consider the destruction of the Hood to be a lucky strike too.

3. No, in terms of HOI2 I do _not_ consider the Bismarck as having been sunk by that Swordfish. In terms of HOI2 it was sunk by a taskforce consisting of 1 CV, 2 BBs, and a bunch of other ships.

Yes, without the CVs, the Bismarck might have escaped. But without the BBs, it would have had plenty of time to repair its rudder or get a few escorts or whatever, before the CV alone would have been anyhwere near sinking her by itself. As I've said, it was really the whole task force that did it, not the CV alone.

See, I have nothing against seeing CVs useful in that kind of a combined arms scenario. E.g., as a way to stop people from hitting "retreat" and getting a free ride out. I do sorta have a problem though with mis-representing a whole group's efficiency as being the CV alone that did all the work. That's all.

4. In all the penetration tables and formulas I've _ever_ seen, point blank penetration was _higher_ than penetration at long range. Unless you're trying to tell me that naval guns act fundamentally differently than, say, tank guns or AT guns. If you do have any info that suggest that a BB gun has _less_ penentration at 2500 to 4000m ranges, which is what they did there, please do kindly share the info.

Furthermore, the probability to miss when the curvature of the trajectory is less than the height of the target, is greatly reduced. See for example, why the German 88mm FLAK gun was a tank killer, or conversely why an AK-47 is considered much less useful beyond 300m... although its max range is a lot higher.

1) I don't think British carriers had dive bombers at that point though... Nor did the WW2 era carriers have seperate recon planes. With 60 planes in total I'd quess that Ark Royal's wing would have had 30-40 Swordfishes (on USN and IJN carriers the ration was usually around 1/3 fighters).

3) Renown was there too, but she and Ark Royal and the DDs stayed back in reserve while Rodney, King Geoge V and the CAs finished off Bismarck. I'd say two different taskforces in the same geographical area.

Bismarck was ouright incapable of repairing her rudder, as the crew couldn't enter the extreme stern. Only option was returning to port, but the broken rudder alone prevented that.

And do note that I didn't say that it was the CV alone that sunk Bismarck historically, only game wise.

4) You misinterperted that. I'm saying that Bismarcks belt was relatively thicker than her deck armour (she was desinged for North Atlantic afterall). The guns on both Rodney and KGV would have had easier time penetrating Bismarck's deck at long range than her belt at short.

 

[unmerged(37701)]

KofK: duly noted on both accounts.

Could be that I'm remembering the wrong carrier. In fact, it's probable too. Thanks for the info.

As for the effect of that rudder hit, my point was not that it wasn't important, but that the CV in the end played an auxiliary (if by sheer luck crucial) role in a combined arms taskforce. It was the CV _and_ 2 BBs _and_ a couple of other ships that sunk the Bismarck, not a case of "1-on-1 a CV sunk a BB", as some people here seem to view the BB role in WW2. That was my whole point: that it was really a combined effort, rather than "BBs were obsolete, build only CVs."

I agree wholeheartedly on this last point; I'm just a pedantic bugger sometimes, which is why I brought the Ark Royal info into play.

 

[Dalwin]

The extreme cost of producing battleships has already been mentioned.

Most major powers at the beginning of the war realized that carriers were more important than battleships. Why then did battleships continue to be built? The Bismark and Tirpitz represented a major expenditure.

That reason which was to a great extent a holdover from the previous era was one of national prestige. Battleships were a symbol of strength and the ability to project that strength. They no longer lived up to the image but the image still existed. A country without battleships could not be considered a major naval power on the world stage.

 

[Braedonnal]

Although I do agree that Bismarck is much overvaunted (as is the rest of the German WW2 surface navy), I wouldn't go as far as to say that she was a poor desing. Better than many of the treaty battleships of other countries, at least.

To call the Bismarck a 'treaty battleship' is a bit of a stretch of the imagination. Compared to the American North Carolina's and South Dakota's or the British KGV class where the designers actually tried to follow treaty limitations, Bismarck easily had 7,000 tons on any of them and even with such an advantage in tonnage, I put any of those classes against the Bismarck and give them equal or better odds on Bismarck. KGV is much more iffy, those teething problems with the 14" mounts never were satisfactorily resolved plus the lighter AP shell but they'd give Bismarck a run for her money. Against the American ships is no contest, 2,700lb AP shells gave Bismarck no immune zone at all.

Bismarck had some good points, mind you. Her armament was good enough and the optical equipment was excellent and better than the British optical equipment at the time. Yet it wasn't so excellent in the gale she was destroyed in, while the British battleships used radar ranging that battle. She had a good amount of beam, and therefore was a very stable gun platform. She could also make a decent speed for the time, superior than the British battleships in pursuit. Her vertical protection scheme proved itself (with exception of the 6in upper belt) but as ranges closed the Bismarck was repeatedly holed even on the main belt, conning tower and turrets/barbettes. Of course, at final ranges of 3-5,000 yds, just about any ship would have been holed. British gunnery was exceptional, especially Rodney's early in the fight, and the use of radar ranging certainly aided them in the awful conditions the final battle was fought in.

Bismarck also had some very serious faults. Her deck protection, by-and-large, was a joke and was holed even at close ranges that her final battle took place in. Deck penetrations aren't expected at close ranges for the most part as shells tend to hit vertical armor and glance off the deck. Long range is the opposite, shells plunge into deck armor and glance off the belt. This is an oversimplification but tends to hold true.

Her underwater protection wasn't sufficient either given her beam. It consisted of only a two layer system, the outer was void and the inner, liquid filled. This is poor practice as it allowed direct transmission of damage to the inner layer as compared to when an outer liquid filled layer is hit and absorbs some of that explosive force/fragments and transfers into the second, inner void layer. To be fair, it is difficult to find a completely satisfactory torpedo defense system (TDS) and the only that ever even remotely impressed me was that of the Tennessee and Colorado classes. Their turbo-electric drive's internal arrangements allowed for an ample, five layered, TDS. Pretty good for such old boats.

One can't fault the Bismarck on her vulnerability to the rudder hit, however. Firstly, no warship in the world had enough beam at the ends to even allow a TDS at that point of the ship. The Bismarck's rudder arrangements could have been improved as they were too close to each other (and both were disabled by one hit) and also when one considers German ships tended to have structurally weak sterns (Lutzow 1940, Bismarck 1941 and Prinz Eugen 1942). All these ships suffered near-fatal hits by torpedo that either caused the stern to be severed or in Bismarck's case, for the upper decks to collapse upon the steering box. This problem would be eventually corrected.

The point of my rambling is that the Bismarck had more than a few flaws. She didn't fully embrace the 'all-or-nothing' armor scheme and because of that armor was wasted on certain areas and was far too light on other (namely the deck). Given her tonnage, Bismarck could have been a much better ship had the German designers studied up more on what other navies discovered over the interwar years. That's my take anyways but, as always, feel free to disagree. I love a good debate on naval things.

 

[Braedonnal]

The extreme cost of producing battleships has already been mentioned.

Most major powers at the beginning of the war realized that carriers were more important than battleships. Why then did battleships continue to be built? The Bismark and Tirpitz represented a major expenditure.

That reason which was to a great extent a holdover from the previous era was one of national prestige. Battleships were a symbol of strength and the ability to project that strength. They no longer lived up to the image but the image still existed. A country without battleships could not be considered a major naval power on the world stage.

I rather disagree that most nation's felt that way at all at the start of the war. The carrier was a new weapon and while the theory was sound, they had nothing but a few exercises to back them up their usefulness (the Lexington's mock attack on the Panama Canal was enlightening to much of the naval world), so the carriers still had to prove their worth in combat.

As such, nations continued to build battleships as they were proven weapons. The battleship had weathered the introduction of the torpedo boat and the advent submarine and survived so who could say if the carrier would be any different? The carrier didn't really prove its worth until the attack at Taranto and the disabling of the Bismarck.

The Japanese and Americans would take these lessons and further develop them. In the Americans case, they really had no choice after Pearl Harbor anyways, it was carriers or nothing for a long time.

That's how I see it anyways. I do agree about the prestige angle though. A country's navy was measured by its battleships, not by its carriers.

 

[unmerged(17296)]

Having never played multi player. I can only speak to solitare play. In that regard I really have to say that in HOI2 it is not a waste to build BBs. The AI builds them and uses them. Of course the AI does some amazingly stupid things, but in my current game (in October 43) the US (played by the AI) has 43 of them. By contrast they only have 16 carriers. Playing germany I have 6 CVs, 8 BBs, 2 BCs. Now, after finishing the SU, I have to contemplate attacking the US. I don't look at the US BBs as obsolete and am doing everything I can to lure them into range of naval bombers.

I am curious how this translates in MP play. I wish I had the time to devote to an evening to participate in an MP game. (I am guessing the games take place on more than one day.) But I can imagine one's horror at losing a BB... that would really hurt, and I am sure to some degree alter the naval balance.

That being said, historically by 1941 the BB was indeed obsolete as compared to the CV. No, not every BB was sunk by CVs, nor would it have been a "one punch" engagement for the CV (where it could likely have been had the BB gotten in range.) But any BB skipper with any brains would flee a confrontation with a CV (if they knew they were in range.) While any CV skipper would druel over the prospect of having a BB in strike range and manuver carefully to keep it so until they sunk her. At the time perhaps just a few people knew it was so in 1941, but it was true then none the less. The big brass in both Japanese and American navys thought that the battleships put out of commision at Pearl Harbor had altered the naval balance significantly in Japan's favor, but in reality it didn't. By 43 or 44, people could look back and realize this.

I truly love discussing the Pacific war as I have read voraciously on the subject. Many of the writers here have obviously as well. We have all formed our opinions, in many cases only slightly at varriance with one another, and love to expound on them. I am not sure it is possible to model the true outclassing of the BB by the CV in the game as it is not just a technical advantage. In reality no one wanted to risk their BBs to possible air attack. Much has been said here about the BBs heavy armor and their resistance to such attacks. But incidents like the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse made the political leaders of the time so fearful that they just didn't want to lose another.

Genl MacArthur had little use for most US Navy admirals because they were too worried about their precious ships. One of the ones he liked though was Halsey, because he wasn't affraid to risk everything to fight. Halsey sent in two US battleships to contest a Japanese BB bombardment mission. This was a huge risk since the BBs were really supposed to be the AA escorts for his only CV (Enterprise) at the time. But he saw the situation as all or nothing and took the risk. One of the BBs got hit several times during the fight and the other came away unscathed.... The Japanese BB (realy a reconstructed BC and called a BB) was ripped to pieces. My point here is while the BB was obsolete compared to the CV in 1942 when this happend, it still had it uses and I think illustrates that it is not necessarily a waste of money in HOI2.

However, if you are going to park your BBs in port for the whole game then they are a waste of money. For my opinion historically the Yamatos (despite what you think of their armor) ended up being a waste of money. They weren't very good AA platforms, the Japanese were afraid to risk them until the balance of power had shifted so fataly that when they did use them it was basicaly on suicide missions, and their so called out classing of any US BB was no longer an advantage since the US had become a carrier power and didn't offer surface battle opportunities for them. So it is strategy in HOI2 that makes BBs a waste of money, not their capabilites.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[Sneaking Viper]

there was one (doenst remember the name) who shot 60 (!) carrier on his own with one sub during the war.

Sorry but i doubt that there even was 60 true carriers in WW2. And the only confirmed kill of a carrier by German navy was Captain Lt. Prien (U-47). When he killed the one in Scapa Flow.

And to Petrarca..

Far from it.

Saipan was bombarded for three days and the Japanese defenders were described as "barely impaired" afterwards. Tinian, by contrast, was bombarded for forty four days. 2nd and 4th MarDivs captured the island with a tenth of the casualties suffered on Saipan. Peleliu was bombarded for two days, leaving the Marine battalions that hit the beach highly vulnerable to enfilading fire, stranding some isolated on their beaches, and creating avenues for devastating counterattacks that fortunately the Japanese did not pursue. So a good bombardment is going to be several days, if not weeks.

You cant actually compare these two islands. On Saipan the japanese army was so heavy fortified in the mountain paths that even combined forces of navy AND airforce couldn't dig them out, hence the high number of losses by the americans, they had to "dig them out" one cave at a time.

 

[unmerged(37701)]

Sorry but i doubt that there even was 60 true carriers in WW2. And the only confirmed kill of a carrier by German navy was Captain Lt. Prien (U-47). When he killed the one in Scapa Flow.

And to Petrarca..



You cant actually compare these two islands. On Saipan the japanese army was so heavy fortified in the mountain paths that even combined forces of navy AND airforce couldn't dig them out, hence the high number of losses by the americans, they had to "dig them out" one cave at a time.

Prien sank Royal Oak, a battleship in Scapa; I don't think that he either repeated the feat or sank a carrier whilst there.

 

[Dresdenboy]

Sorry but i doubt that there even was 60 true carriers in WW2. And the only confirmed kill of a carrier by German navy was Captain Lt. Prien (U-47). When he killed the one in Scapa Flow.

In total that were 5 sunk RN Carriers:
RN aircraft carriers sunk by german u boats
But Prien didn't sink a carrier.

On that site there is no info on sunk american carriers, but I also don't remember, if there was an american carrier sunk by a u boat.

And about the number of carriers - count yourself:
Aircraft carriers of WWII

 

[String]

In total that were 5 sunk RN Carriers:
RN aircraft carriers sunk by german u boats
But Prien didn't sink a carrier.

On that site there is no info on sunk american carriers, but I also don't remember, if there was an american carrier sunk by a u boat.

And about the number of carriers - count yourself:
Aircraft carriers of WWII

USS Wasp was torpedoed by a japanese submarine I-19 in what was probably one of the most successful torpedo attacks ever done by a submarine. Of the six torpedoes fired two or three hit CV Wasp, one hit BB North Carolina, doing some damage and another hit DD O'brien and the last one narrowly missed CV Hornet

DD O'Brien didn't sink immediatly but broke in two while being transferred to west coast for further repairs.

USS Yorktown was torpedoed by japanese sub I-168 after being damaged in the battle of Midway and sailing to Pearl Harbor. In the same attack DD Hammann was also hit and sunk

 

[unmerged(28147)]

I dug up some information, don't know which ships these were or anything but it is some numbers.

http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/

Go there and search for the major warships sunk section.

 

[Petrarca]

You cant actually compare these two islands. On Saipan the japanese army was so heavy fortified in the mountain paths that even combined forces of navy AND airforce couldn't dig them out, hence the high number of losses by the americans, they had to "dig them out" one cave at a time.

I compared three. And I'd prefer to talk about Peleliu and Tinian since I've just finished reading about the former. At Peleliu, Marine regimental commanders complained of insufficient bombardment, particularly after naval gunfire was halted on the third day of bombardment. This became a crisis, as the beach defenses and enfilading guns were largely untouched and caused tremendous losses to the 1st Marine Regiment in particular. Additionally, the intact defensive positions destroyed enough LVTs to stop intended reinforcements from coming ashore, further endangering the amphibious assault.

 

[Yaiko]

Heh, I once had a Battleship centered fleet manage to encounter an enemy carrier fleet with 4 carriers. Luckily, I had rain and better skill on my side. My ships closed range and blew those outta the water with no losses among the lesser ships except a heavy Cruiser.

Of course going off to meet an enemy carrier fleet when the weather is cleaar, you have bad techs and all your leaders are sub-par is not gonna work. Have a good Naval Bomber scout around, lure the enemy carrier fleet in for an attempt to take the island/coast, and once you know the zone the enemy fleet is in, hope you got some bad weather to give you some cover, and wham!

 

[unmerged(40362)]

After reading this thread, i am still desperate to hear the name of the german Oberleutnant that sunk 60 (!!) carriers. :rofl:

How on earth did the germans lose the war?

Quite simple. They didn't have amphibious tanks to cross the channel with!

 

[Sneaking Viper]

Prien sank Royal Oak, a battleship in Scapa; I don't think that he either repeated the feat or sank a carrier whilst there.

Ups true :wacko: mixed up Royal Oak and Royal Ark o

And it seems that i need to brush up on my WW2 naval info, thanks for the links :rofl:

 

[Braedonnal]

I compared three. And I'd prefer to talk about Peleliu and Tinian since I've just finished reading about the former. At Peleliu, Marine regimental commanders complained of insufficient bombardment, particularly after naval gunfire was halted on the third day of bombardment. This became a crisis, as the beach defenses and enfilading guns were largely untouched and caused tremendous losses to the 1st Marine Regiment in particular. Additionally, the intact defensive positions destroyed enough LVTs to stop intended reinforcements from coming ashore, further endangering the amphibious assault.

True and Peleliu was, by most accounts, an unnecessary operation as Ulithi had been abandoned and taken and would become the main Third/Fifth Fleet base. If Halsey had his way, that operation would have never taken place but given Ulithi's usefulness as a forward base, it is hard to call it a wasted operation (like some historians claim).

One of the main problems with shore bombardment is that it is only as good as your aerial intelligence is and until you actually put troops on shore you likely won't find caves and well camouflaged strongpoints. That is why it is so important to have bombardment continue after the landings, so hard points missed in the initial bombardment can be shelled/bombed. This isn't the era of satillites so near complete intel isn't going to happen. Men will die finding the places missed.

It is interesting that bombarding ships were called off and not available when strongpoints were missed. You'd rather think men on the ground would communicate positions to a ship assigned to a certain area or something like that. Very interesting, indeed.

 

[Braedonnal]

Having never played multi player. I can only speak to solitare play. In that regard I really have to say that in HOI2 it is not a waste to build BBs. The AI builds them and uses them. Of course the AI does some amazingly stupid things, but in my current game (in October 43) the US (played by the AI) has 43 of them. By contrast they only have 16 carriers. Playing germany I have 6 CVs, 8 BBs, 2 BCs. Now, after finishing the SU, I have to contemplate attacking the US. I don't look at the US BBs as obsolete and am doing everything I can to lure them into range of naval bombers.

I'm in the same boat and haven't played MP. The US with 43 BB's is insane if they only have 16 CV's. Did they lose many of them? I mean the US launched eight battleships during the war something near 100 CV's (if you include CVE's) so the AI's building priorities are a bit off I think.

I am curious how this translates in MP play. I wish I had the time to devote to an evening to participate in an MP game. (I am guessing the games take place on more than one day.) But I can imagine one's horror at losing a BB... that would really hurt, and I am sure to some degree alter the naval balance.

I'd wish I did and I'd think it would hurt too but this is only a guess.

That being said, historically by 1941 the BB was indeed obsolete as compared to the CV. No, not every BB was sunk by CVs, nor would it have been a "one punch" engagement for the CV (where it could likely have been had the BB gotten in range.) But any BB skipper with any brains would flee a confrontation with a CV (if they knew they were in range.) While any CV skipper would druel over the prospect of having a BB in strike range and manuver carefully to keep it so until they sunk her. At the time perhaps just a few people knew it was so in 1941, but it was true then none the less. The big brass in both Japanese and American navys thought that the battleships put out of commision at Pearl Harbor had altered the naval balance significantly in Japan's favor, but in reality it didn't. By 43 or 44, people could look back and realize this.

I think it rather depends on the navy in question. By looking at the ships powers built just before the war and during it, you can get a good idea what their priorities were.

The Japanese built 2 battleships out of a planned four and converted one battleship into a carrier and built several carriers during the war. Japan, without a doubt, embraced the carrier as a weapon before and continued to during the war.

The US, I feel, was the same. Sure, the US built more than a few battleships but four were built to be special carrier escorts (the planned six Iowa's) while they laid down many more fleet carriers. I think the Essex class was a planned 36ish carriers (with many laid down pre-war) and add to this CVL's and CVE's and it is easy to see American plans for her navy even pre-war. Air power projection would be key. Of course, Pearl Harbor left 8 battleships damaged or sunk so for war they had to use carriers regardless.

I rather feel European powers didn't as much think of the carrier as a substitute for the battleship. Britain built a good amount of carriers of the CVE type and CV's of the armored flight deck type yet against the Bismarck, Tovey called off the Swordfish so the battleships could close and finish her off. His gamble paid off but can you imagine the problems if one of the British battleships were seriously damaged or sunk? Yet, the British were quite innovative with carrier use at times via port strikes (Taranto will always be a favorite 'battle' of mine). Late war they certainly were converted and their four carrier task force in the Pacific was quite handy. I'd say they were in transition from battleship to air but maybe they were converted earlier but other ships were needed like destroyers, CVE's etc.

France, Germany and Italy I lump into one group. These powers were fixed on the battleship.

I rather think of WW2 as the dusk of the battleship; there was still a bit of shine at times and in certain roles but the night was soon to come. Obsolete? Not quite, but the sitution post-war made it so even a Baltimore class heavy cruiser could pummel any ship she was likely to face at war so why have a battleship? The Soviet Navy was so far behind the US Navy and the US and UK certainly weren't going to fight each other.

I truly love discussing the Pacific war as I have read voraciously on the subject. Many of the writers here have obviously as well. We have all formed our opinions, in many cases only slightly at varriance with one another, and love to expound on them. I am not sure it is possible to model the true outclassing of the BB by the CV in the game as it is not just a technical advantage. In reality no one wanted to risk their BBs to possible air attack. Much has been said here about the BBs heavy armor and their resistance to such attacks. But incidents like the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse made the political leaders of the time so fearful that they just didn't want to lose another.

As do I, as do I.

HMS Repluse was doomed for certain. Her very light protection scheme from the pre-Jutland era made her a target waiting to be sunk. HMS Renown, her sister ship, was kept with HMS Ark Royal and wasn't allowed within range of Bismarck's guns so she was vulnerable to near everything.

HMS Prince of Wales might have done better but for an unlucky occurance and her large tactical diameter making her unable to effectively dodge torpedoes. One torpedo on the port side bent a propeller shaft and it wasn't turned off immediately (a sign of poor damage control) and the shaft ended up tearing a large hole that disabled the ship. She was also struck by three torpedoes (possibly more) on the starboard side but she would capsize to port. The turning bent shaft and resulting damage from that hit sank her.

Of course, this isn't to say battleships should operate without air cover but rather to show some of the circumstances of the ships that led to their loss.

Genl MacArthur had little use for most US Navy admirals because they were too worried about their precious ships. One of the ones he liked though was Halsey, because he wasn't affraid to risk everything to fight. Halsey sent in two US battleships to contest a Japanese BB bombardment mission. This was a huge risk since the BBs were really supposed to be the AA escorts for his only CV (Enterprise) at the time. But he saw the situation as all or nothing and took the risk. One of the BBs got hit several times during the fight and the other came away unscathed.... The Japanese BB (realy a reconstructed BC and called a BB) was ripped to pieces. My point here is while the BB was obsolete compared to the CV in 1942 when this happend, it still had it uses and I think illustrates that it is not necessarily a waste of money in HOI2.

MacArthur had little use for Navy admirals and Navy admirals had little use for MacArthur. The Navy had the Navy Plan for advance across the Central Pacific and the Army had the Army Plan of the Solomons, New Guinea, the East Indies and Philippines. Personally, I liked the Navy Plan better as it was the shortest route to Japan and thus would end the war more quickly while the Army Plan first attacked the outer defenses in succession, then moved to an middle, namely the Philippines, and finally to Japan.

Unfortunately, the Army and Navy in a way fought wars with each other over everything; men, ships, supplies and everything else. As various US Navy men put it that there chief opponents in the war in order of priority were, "first MacArthur, then the US Army and finally the Japanese." MacArthur's special position ensured that no unified command in the Pacific would be had, unlike in Europe. Given Nimitz's demeanor, and what I know of MacArthur's ego, I'd have rather seen Nimitz with overall command but it could never be.

As to the Battle of Guadalcanal, Halsey really had no choice. The night previous had wrecked the US cruiser-destroyer force. It was risky but the alternative was to allow the Japanese free reign to bombard Henderson Field and resupply at night. The weakness of the Kongo class' armor was proven in that cruiser melee when even 8" heavy cruiser guns effectively penetrated and disabled the so-called fast battleship. USS Washington would prove American superiority in firepower on their battleships (2700 lb AP shells do very awful things at 8,400 yds to armored ships) and USS South Dakota would prove the superiority of the all-or-nothing protection scheme in use by the British and American treaty battleships. 27 hits of various caliber shells that never threatened the bouyancy, guns or machinery. The armored citadel was not penetrated at all but her electronics and FC was blown away which effectively removed her from the battle (blind at night).

However, if you are going to park your BBs in port for the whole game then they are a waste of money. For my opinion historically the Yamatos (despite what you think of their armor) ended up being a waste of money. They weren't very good AA platforms, the Japanese were afraid to risk them until the balance of power had shifted so fataly that when they did use them it was basicaly on suicide missions, and their so called out classing of any US BB was no longer an advantage since the US had become a carrier power and didn't offer surface battle opportunities for them. So it is strategy in HOI2 that makes BBs a waste of money, not their capabilites.

I agree on both counts. If you build em and don't use them, what's the point? It's true that the Yamato class ships were a waste and I think they would have been better served by building four more conventional battleships instead of two 'super-battleships'. An Iowa against a Yamato would have been an interesting battle but it wasn't going to happen.

Just my humble opinion.

What's with us Midwestern Chicago boys and our fixation of all things naval. We ought to be at Norfolk or San Diego or something. :rofl:

 

[unmerged(37701)]

Ups true :wacko: mixed up Royal Oak and Royal Ark o

And it seems that i need to brush up on my WW2 naval info, thanks for the links :rofl:

No problem, but it's Ark Royal, not Royal Ark

 

[unmerged(17296)]

Brae,
Thanks for the nice commentary. I didn't go into a lot of the army-navy stuff because I simply was trying to illustrate that it's strategy not capability that governs whether you employ a paticular weapons system. I used the Halsey decision on sending in the BBs because in a sense he did have another choice... to not send them in. Ghormley would probably not have, and the timidity of the south pacific command got Nimitz to replace him with Halsey.

Not sending in the Washington and South Dakota might have doomed Guadalcanal for they surely would have suffered heavy aircraft and supply losses under the 14" guns of the Japanese BB, which was a critical moment at the time. Of course you are right, to Halsey, he didn't see it as a choice. But it was a risk (else he would have commited the BBs in earlier battles.) Which makes my point. Halsey used everything to win, as MacArthur would argue he did himself. He praised this in Halsey.

If you are not willing to risk everything to win critical theatres in real life war, then you have increased your chances of losing. If HOI2, it's a bigger question. When playing against the AI, it can be frequently blunderingly stupid and occasionally brilliant. You might be able to catch it at it's worst and take advange. My read on the war in the Pacific was that while there differences in commanders, they were rarely completely incompetent.

As for us midwest boys, I played Sea Power with naval miniatures as a youngster in the 70s. I have always been in love with the majesty and scope of the pacific war. I suppose had I actually served in the navy, I'd have much less affection for it, since I would have more than my fill. I haven't been at an Origins convention in over 15 years though and would love to get back involved with people rather than AIs but having a demanding job and a new wife makes those kind of forays wishes at the moment.

Edit:
Sheesh, I forgot to reply to your discussion on construction priorities and what they implied. I think that you can't completely say the US was sure it would be a carrier war. Most admirals at the time considered the CV as a support system which could cover the BBs and keep them safe so the BBs could do the real slugging. The US planned to and/or built 2 North Carolinas, 4 South Dakotas, 6 Iowas, 4 Montanas and 4 Alaskas (I am including the BCs as they were big gun boats) that's 18... They already had something like 12 Old BBs... I think they were originally planning on building 19 Essex class CVs and 4 Midways to add to their 6 CVs already... so 32 BBs to 29 CVs. Of course shortly after Pearl Harbor they had a revelation of thought with the CVLs and CVEs, but before late 1941 I truly think most (with some exceptions) of the US planning was still oriented towards the battle line.

The Japanese had much more limited resources. They could of easily had 6 or 8 CVs for the cost of the 3 Yamatos (Shinano is included here). If they truly grasped the concept I think they would not have built big BBs. That being said, Pearl Harbor is pretty persuasive evidence that they were much farther down the "CV is preeminent" line of thinking than anyone else at the time.

Thanks again for the wonderful discussion.

Again just my opinion.

 

[Petrarca]

Braedonnal, I've been really enjoying your posts. Additionally, they're so thorough that all I can add is that the South Dakota took hits so well the resulting list was only detectable via instrumentation.