Capital Ship Commerce Raiding

[unmerged(15623)]

like I said they were fast and able to take out any ship that outran them - even heavier ships. The pocketbattleships had "radar assisted gun control" device that gave them an edge compared to many allied ships. When she engaged in battle of River Plata she was scoring more hits to the enemy then the enemy was scoring on her,

by means of tactical envelopment - the admiral divided his fleet - the Graf Spee could approached and forcing her to divide fire the hunters,

Why are you insisting that they were fast ships? They were not. 26 knots constitutes for a fast speed if we are talking about a pre-dreadnought era cruiser or a WWI era battleships, but it was unacceptably low for a WW2 era fleet desing.

Claiming that they could take out any ship faster than them means claiming that they could take out ships like Yamato, Iowa, North Carolina, King Geroge V or Littorio which, in turn, is like claiming that Pzkw Ib had generally no trouble taking out an IS-3. No matter how super-hyper good their radar fire control is (it must also be noted that, on avarage, quality of radar and things related to it was higher on allied ships).

Also, there was no "encirclement" involved in the Battle of River Plate. The British tried it, but the Exeter got a bloody nose and withdrew before the Leanders could flank Graf Spee. The rest of the battle just saw Ajax and Achilles basically chasing the panzershiffe.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

when the raiders broke out into the atlantic the british would have heart trouble due to there building restrictions prior to the war (the washington naval treaty). the germans were not aparty to this and hitler did not care he did what he wanted to.

While Germany was not signatory to the interwar naval trieaties, it failed to gain any significant advantage of the fact after Hitler threw Versailles treaty in the trash can in '35 (it must also be noted that the naval treaties were crumbling as well in the mid '30s). The two non-versailles ship classes that were designed and completed pre war (ie. Gneisenau and Hipper) were still very "treaty-like".

(Edit) Oh, and in the case you were wondering, I do agree with both of you in that the surface raiders caused trouble far exceeding their small numbers (just like Admiral Graf Spee's cruisers did in WWI). It should be somehow simulated in HoI 2. The fact that Germany itself lacked any capability to exploit this "trouble" was a serious downside, however.

 

[unmerged(20324)]

the only country to completely comply with the washington naval treaty was britian. the gneisenau class and pocket battleships were grossly over the tonnage limit. when the bismark,gneisenau's and admiral's broke out nothing could touch them in the atlantic (remember the Hood). Only by sending out every thing they had could they sink the bismark, with a lucky torpedo strike. britian had a sorry fleet air arm and the RAF could not even hit a docked BB until 1944 when the RAF sank the tripitz with a 12000 pound bomb. The channel dash by the germans shows the lack of british torpedo bomber technology. the U.S. could not stand up to a german BB, BC, or CA on a one to one ratio early in the war either.

read "The Great Ships Pass" by Peter C. Smith, its a great read for the british use of BB's in WWII. Even its fare about the failings of the british in the lack of forsight in naval conflicts.

 

[Spruce]

Why are you insisting that they were fast ships? They were not. 26 knots constitutes for a fast speed if we are talking about a pre-dreadnought era cruiser or a WWI era battleships, but it was unacceptably low for a WW2 era fleet desing.

Claiming that they could take out any ship faster than them means claiming that they could take out ships like Yamato, Iowa, North Carolina, King Geroge V or Littorio which, in turn, is like claiming that Pzkw Ib had generally no trouble taking out an IS-3. No matter how super-hyper good their radar fire control is (it must also be noted that, on avarage, quality of radar and things related to it was higher on allied ships).

Also, there was no "encirclement" involved in the Battle of River Plate. The British tried it, but the Exeter got a bloody nose and withdrew before the Leanders could flank Graf Spee. The rest of the battle just saw Ajax and Achilles basically chasing the panzershiffe.

I've said that the ship was designed to be fast - to be very economical on the diesels - and to be able to take out any ship that was faster. I've read that the Britisch fleet commander feared the firepower of the pocketbattleship - I've also read that he used his faster ships (that had weaker firepower) to hunt down the Graf Spee.

you can't hardly state that they were slow and had poor guns!

neither did I say that the Germans had designed the best ship or the fastes ship or the most powerful ship.

About future designs and models - sorry but cristal balls are not possible. In fact your example about the tanks says it all, a design is part of evolution and is always a compromise -,

 

[unmerged(14249)]

Only by sending out every thing they had could they sink the bismark, with a lucky torpedo strike. britian had a sorry fleet air arm and the RAF could not even hit a docked BB until 1944 when the RAF sank the tripitz with a 12000 pound bomb. The channel dash by the germans shows the lack of british torpedo bomber technology.

You're forgetting Taranto in which the Fleet Air Arm took out several docked battleships. And I don't see what was "lucky" about about the strike on the Bismarck - the Ark Royal's Swordfish attacked it and crippled it. What more do you want?

Andrew

 

[Spruce]

What more do you want?

a Bismarck in the company of a German aircraft carrier!

 

[unmerged(32776)]

The attack on Bismarck was as lucky as any other air strike is with a handful of aircraft on a single ship on a big ocean. Still it was exactly in line with RN Carrier Doctrine.

A note about PB's. These ships were of pretty dubious value despite the propaganda. They had 2 turrets and one director: they could only engage one ship at a time. The RN college at Dartmouth held a course on how to handle them with cruisers run by a certain Captain Harwood: ironically the man who ran Graf Spee to earth with these pack tactics. They really were Armoured Cruisers: the Brits had Renown, Repulse and the beautiful Hood, more than capable of catching them and disecting them at long range. Falklands Mk2 with Von Scheer being the ship rather than the Admiral.

Secondly they were not designed as commerce raiders. New research in Germany has thrown up that their design was based on a possible war with France who, in the late 20's, still had some semi-Dreadnoughts of the Danton class. The Germans worried that the French might consider these expendable and send them round to blockade the Skaggerak. The Deutschlands were concieved as countermeasures to these elderly threats.

If you are going to allow Capital ships to commerce raid then you must allow Capital ships to escort as well. This was the British countermeasure and in the now famous incident Scharnhorst and Gniesenau didn't engage a convoy because an old 'R' class battleship was part of the escort. Hitler, scared of high profile losses (ship losses for Germany really should crank up dissent), had ordered that they engage no ships with guns 14" or greater.

Food for thought

Jumbo

 

[unmerged(27364)]

Personally I think the naval combat realm needs much work , maybe Johan is a landlover :rofl: . NE way , one useful addition would be the patrol button like we had in EU II. That would make none convoy attached escorts work much better. You could set up a BB or a CV and CAs to patrol your convoy routes and prevent enemy raiders from attacking your commerce. Also , this would allow your commerce raiders to "PATROL" convoy routes.

While this will not fix all the issues with the naval combat modeling , it would be a great start, and Paradox should be able to reproduce the code for that program easier than reinvinting the entire naval combat system. But alas , I must dream of that as well. Either way, your doin a kick a#@ job Paradox et al. Cheers

 

[unmerged(32776)]

the only country to completely comply with the washington naval treaty was britian. the gneisenau class and pocket battleships were grossly over the tonnage limit. when the bismark,gneisenau's and admiral's broke out nothing could touch them in the atlantic (remember the Hood). Only by sending out every thing they had could they sink the bismark, with a lucky torpedo strike. britian had a sorry fleet air arm and the RAF could not even hit a docked BB until 1944 when the RAF sank the tripitz with a 12000 pound bomb. The channel dash by the germans shows the lack of british torpedo bomber technology. the U.S. could not stand up to a german BB, BC, or CA on a one to one ratio early in the war either.

read "The Great Ships Pass" by Peter C. Smith, its a great read for the british use of BB's in WWII. Even its fare about the failings of the british in the lack of forsight in naval conflicts.

This is total rubbish.

The Bismarck WAS touched, very handily by Rodney and KGV I recall and she did not even land a single shot on them in return. The FAA was only lucky in the same sense that Bismarck was against the Hood, except that a modern battleship had less excuse for a design flaw than a 20+ year old Battlecruiser! The FAA was a very good service. Don't knock the old Stringbag, m8, it could take off from a CVE with a radome and sink subs, cripple Italian battleships in port, the pilots loved it because it was flawless and mechanics loved it because it was rugged and reliable. The old bird was an unlikley war winner but still deserves respect for it's feats. Blame the RAF. They were in charge of naval aviation until just before the war. Besides, FAA was the first bunch to sink a warship from the air: Skuas sank the Konigsberg in 1940.

German ship design was pretty flawed. The Bismarck was easily crippled because her hull protection was based on the Bayern, with little rudder or steering protection. The Deutschlands were of limited value on a cost-benefit basis whilst Scharnhorst and Gniesenau. although good ships, suffered from weak armament. Oh, and Scharnhorst was 'touched' too, by Duke of York...

Your only accurate point is that Britain abided by the Washington treaty limits.

Please read something...

Jumbo

 

[GrimReaper]

a Bismarck in the company of a German aircraft carrier!

Sounds like Nitro + Glycerin

 

[unmerged(15623)]

German ship design was pretty flawed.

They did have an excuse for that though. It's not like the versailles trety left them with much room to experiment with new hull types. So they couldn't really follow the traditional process of shipbuilding, ie. buiding an 'innovator' class and then improving the desing with follow up classes (eg. Japanese Hiryu/Soryu evolved into Shokaku which evolved into Taiho).

This resulted in that the Bismarck had to be ultimately based on an WWI era battleship desing.

the U.S. could not stand up to a german BB, BC, or CA on a one to one ratio early in the war either.

What do you base this on? At least on paper, the US ships were quite a bit more powerful than even the newest German desings. In fact, I claim that even a Brooklyn class light cruiser could have mopped the bottom of the ocean with one of the Admiral Hipper class. Ultimately USN was probably the best navy quality-wise during WW2.

you can't hardly state that they were slow and had poor guns!

neither did I say that the Germans had designed the best ship or the fastes ship or the most powerful ship.

About future designs and models - sorry but cristal balls are not possible. In fact your example about the tanks says it all, a design is part of evolution and is always a compromise -,

I never said they had poor guns, but they were slow. Thats not something that can be argued. Their top speed on battle loads is listed as 26 knots in nearly all sources. Thats a normal speed for an auxiliary desing.

I don't need any crystal balls to look at what kind of plans the Germans had for their navy in form of the Z-plan. Twelve 25.000+ ton 33 knot panzershiffes and three Gneisenauesque battlecruisers (to replace the Deutschlands) had been ordered and desinged, but the orders were cancelled with the start of the war.

Falklands Mk2 with Von Scheer being the ship rather than the Admiral.

Although I do think you meant von Spee and not von Scheer (who was the big wig at Jutland).

 

[unmerged(20852)]

By the looks of the naval screenshot recently posted by Johan, naval combat will take into account range of the various ships. Whoever has the longest range (CV's with aircraft) will engage the enemy first. So with that in mind, a commerce raider like a pocket battleship with fire first at any cruiser (11" guns vs 9" or less). So it would be fair to say that, in the early war, a pocket battleship could outrun most battleships and outgun the cruisers. The Graf Spee was simply hunted down by superior numbers and had a commander that was more concerned for preserving his ship than gunning it out with the British on the high seas. Understandibly he probably had orders not to do so since he was distant from his repair facilities.
At the time of Bismarck breakout into the Atlantic, the Bismarck was a match for the best of Royal Navy ships. However, if one looks at all battleships in service on that day, the Bismarck was inferior to the North Carolina at the very least.
On the topic of refueling, the current techs that extend a fleets range represents the use of at sea refueling.

 

[Spruce]

I never said they had poor guns, but they were slow. Thats not something that can be argued. Their top speed on battle loads is listed as 26 knots in nearly all sources. Thats a normal speed for an auxiliary desing.

I don't need any crystal balls to look at what kind of plans the Germans had for their navy in form of the Z-plan. Twelve 25.000+ ton 33 knot panzershiffes and three Gneisenauesque battlecruisers (to replace the Deutschlands) had been ordered and desinged, but the orders were cancelled with the start of the war.

I got my info from "Battles of the 20'th century" (Bishop and Drury - Military Press New York),

there's stated "Deutschland class, which was designed with long range and economical diesel machinery to give a speed greater than that of any more powerful ship, while armament and protection were on a scale to be more powerful then any faster ship."

either that book is wrong - or you are,

 

[unmerged(13933)]

I got my info from "Battles of the 20'th century" (Bishop and Drury - Military Press New York),

there's stated "Deutschland class, which was designed with long range and economical diesel machinery to give a speed greater than that of any more powerful ship, while armament and protection were on a scale to be more powerful then any faster ship."

either that book is wrong - or you are,

I went and did a little bit of googleing and came up with some in fo on the pocket bb's. They had max speed around 26-28.5 knots. They had radar equipment. Looking up at the situation at the start of the war the kriegsmarine was facing UK, french and some other fleets. The 2 pocket bb's were sailing in the southern atlantic ocean. Corrrect me if I'm wrong but most UK battleships were of the royal soveregin class with top speed at around 21-22 knots. There were few, 1-2?, King George V class battleships and battle cruisers with top speed at par or faster then the pocket bb's. So the statement that deucthland class bb's, or battlecruisers or even heavy cruisers if you wish, were capable of outgunning faster ships and outrunning if outgunned is IMO at the start of the war correct. IMO it was a decent design considering it's age and the situation.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

I got my info from "Battles of the 20'th century" (Bishop and Drury - Military Press New York),

there's stated "Deutschland class, which was designed with long range and economical diesel machinery to give a speed greater than that of any more powerful ship, while armament and protection were on a scale to be more powerful then any faster ship."

either that book is wrong - or you are,

A thought occurred to me. Didn't you say that the Royal Navy used faster ships to hunt the Graf Spee? However Leander class and Exeter were either as fast or slower (sources conflict slightly) than the Iowa class was, which is the most powerful surface vessel mankind has ever put afloat.

Well, let's stop the nitpicking there.

Anyways the book isn't that horriby wrong (thouh claiming that it was faster and not listing it's speed makes for a rather hollow argument). That's what you usually see being quoted as their intended desing. In the late '20s when the class was envisioned it was also partly true. Only the battlecruisers then afloat (Tiger, Kongo class, Renown class and Hood) could be expected to both outmanuver and outpower it. However, the appearance of fast battleships in the '30s changed that. During WW2 even some of the new post treaty cruisers could have handeled a panzershiffe themselves (at least Des Moines and Alaska are pretty safe bets ).

German Naval History site lists Deutschland at 28 knots (already slower than French Dunkerque BBs who are usually listed at 29, or Hood at 30). However, since the site lists them with different speeds I assume those are maximum speeds achived on trials on light loads and/or when significantly overstressing the engines (trial speeds vary sometimes very grately from true battle speeds, sometimes as many as 5 knots).

This naval art site lists them with 26 knots.

A direct reference in my hand, Eddy Bauer's World War 2 gives them a speed of 26 knots.

Even this silly little book I rented a while ago and have already returned (something called Worlds Battleships and Carriers) listed them at 26 knots.

Corrrect me if I'm wrong but most UK battleships were of the royal soveregin class with top speed at around 21-22 knots. There were few, 1-2?, King George V class battleships and battle cruisers with top speed at par or faster then the pocket bb's.

The R-Class ships (how many were afloat again 4 or 5?) had a speed of around 21 knots.

The Queen Elizabeth class (5 ships) had a speed of 24-25 knots.

Nelson (and Rodney) could steam at 23 at least.

Renown and Repulse are listed between 28-30 knots.

Hood is listed with 30.

None of the King George V class were operational at the start of the war. They could go around 28 tops.

Vanguard was 30 IIRC.

For the French, their old BBs were at 20, Dunkerques at 29 and the unfinished Richileus at 30.

 

[Spruce]

Vaïnö, the point was that you can make a design - but the strength in reality is still something different. And that will be decided in the coming years after the design is implemented.

Based on the book I read - the "Deutschland" class pocket battle ships caused much headaches and consumed huge resources from the UK and French navy to hunt her down.

*** and last but not least *** the ship name can change when she sinks - how about that ?

p.s. the Deutschland name was changed into Lützow for propaganda reasons,

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Scharnhorst and Gniesenau. although good ships, suffered from weak armament.

You shouldn't be too fooled by the fact their their guns were of rather light caliber, btw. They still had armour penetration characteristics comparable to all of the the British battleship guns and twice the rate of fire.

 

[unmerged(32776)]

You shouldn't be too fooled by the fact their their guns were of rather light caliber, btw. They still had armour penetration characteristics comparable to all of the the British battleship guns and twice the rate of fire.

Not borne out by Jane's old chum, which is my first port of call on these occasions. The British 14" and even the 15" Mk1 (on the Warspite class) were better: the Mk1's on the R class had not had their mounts modernised and so could, theoretically, have been outdistanced by the 11" on the Gniesenaus and Deutschlands. Oh and British gunnery technology was generally better - depending on when the ship was last refitted (Hood was due in 1939 and it was cancelled), so they had a better chance of actually hitting the target than the Kriegsmarine, and certainly far better than the Supermarina.

In fact a post-war analysis of naval ordnance by the US Navy found that the 15" Mk1 was the best gun of the war, in terms of balance between rate of fire, penetration, barrel wear and accuracy.

What is not modelled here is the whole 'spirit' of naval warfare. Langsdorff was typical of German naval leadership: cautious and with a desire not to lose his ship, in some ways psychologically paralysed by being up against the RN and what might happen to him back home. The Italian leadership had a similar mentality. RN victories were as much a product of the high levels of aggression cultivated in the service (contrast with British Army for example) which led to a 'sail at the enemy' approach. Although this led to some rather rash attempts to engage the enemy for the most part the adage was that the Royal Navy expected to win, the trouble was that most of its opponents expected it to win too (Japs excepted!).

The political caution of Hitler in risking these big ships must mean that the Germans should take a hit on dissent if they lose a capital ship.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Not borne out by Jane's old chum, which is my first port of call on these occasions. The British 14" and even the 15" Mk1 (on the Warspite class) were better: the Mk1's on the R class had not had their mounts modernised and so could, theoretically, have been outdistanced by the 11" on the Gniesenaus and Deutschlands. Oh and British gunnery technology was generally better - depending on when the ship was last refitted (Hood was due in 1939 and it was cancelled), so they had a better chance of actually hitting the target than the Kriegsmarine, and certainly far better than the Supermarina.

In fact a post-war analysis of naval ordnance by the US Navy found that the 15" Mk1 was the best gun of the war, in terms of balance between rate of fire, penetration, barrel wear and accuracy.

British 14"/45 Mark VII used in King Geroge V class.

The 15"/42 Mark I used from Queen Elizabeth to Vanguard.

Nelson's 16"/45 Mark I.

The 28cm/54.5 SK C/34 of the Gneisenau class.


And for comparison, the 16"/50 Mark 7 wielded by Iowa class.

 

[Montemurro]

What is not modelled here is the whole 'spirit' of naval warfare. Langsdorff was typical of German naval leadership: cautious and with a desire not to lose his ship, in some ways psychologically paralysed by being up against the RN and what might happen to him back home. The Italian leadership had a similar mentality. RN victories were as much a product of the high levels of aggression cultivated in the service (contrast with British Army for example) which led to a 'sail at the enemy' approach. Although this led to some rather rash attempts to engage the enemy for the most part the adage was that the Royal Navy expected to win, the trouble was that most of its opponents expected it to win too (Japs excepted!).

Yes, the always aggresive and bold Royal Navy against the paralyzed and cowardly Italian Navy (RMI) lying supine in port. Where does say the First and Second Battle of Sirte Gulf or Operation Vigorous in 1942, all occasions where the British did their best to avoid the RMI, fit into the picture of the always aggresive RN? Or when the British considered scuttling the battleship Barham and a cruiser merely to block Tripoli harbour in April 1941?

The question to be asked is whether the Italians had a defensible rational for maintaining a fleet-in-being? IMO yes, they had. They faced Europe's premier navy and any hypothetical engagement between the two navies with great losses on both sides would only have been a pyrrhic victory for the RMI, as the RN could replace its losses through new construction or a transfer of ships from other theaters, the Italians could neither.
As it was, throughout the war (Except for a few short periods in November-December 1941 and late summer/early autumn 1942) the RMI kept the RN in the Mediterranean from achieving what both Churchill and Cunningham considered its most important task, that of cutting Axis supply lines to North Africa.
Up until the battle of mid-June, the RMI was a constant thorn in the British side. And even after the fuel shortage following the battle of mid-June stranded the main battle fleet, the Italian submarines and other light vessels would still take a heavy toll on the British (The battle of mid-August.) and the convoys, against all odds, would continue to arrive in North Africa almost until the end despite a crushing Allied superiority.
If so much is made of the few gallant ships who reached Malta (IIRC 43 out of 86), at least as much should be made of the thousands of convoys the RMI succesfully escorted to North Africa inspite of the British having crucial advantages like ULTRA and radar.