-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
They had rather psychological effect IMO than serious convoy battle succeses. I think that if there will be more seazones and spooting enemy harder it will have large effect on any sea combat (even without much other changes).
Actually, Johan indicated in one of his earlier devlopment diaries that there will be an entirely new engine for naval combat. He said that they recognized the inadequacy of making naval combat simply a variation of land combat. So to answer your question, yes, it sounds like we're in for good stuff.
Sharnhorst alone(one single capital ship,no screens) in fiew weeks in 1941 managed to disrupt hall British convoy activities in North Atlantic,staying stealth and constantly on the move,and later on surprised and masacred british carrier HMS Gloruious and its acompanieing 2 destroyers Acasta and Ardent.
HOI 3 should give better chances for single capital ships in convoy riding and in possibility of something known as"Hit and Run"tactics,in which speed and gun laying radars of ships will be esential.
HOI 3 should give better chances for single capital ships in convoy riding and in possibility of something known as"Hit and Run"tactics,in which speed and gun laying radars of ships will be esential.
Last edited:
I think armor is important also... because without the ability to survive one or two hits during disengaging the carier of the rider might end soon.
Of course,though it is somewaht interlinked becouse more armour usualy means less speed.
But Germans were not stupid when constructing Sharnhorst class,they had good armour and excellent speed.
They had smaller,lighter turrets and guns(280 mm) guided by superb(for that time) radar,and those was exactly perfect armament for convoy riding,enabling good precision on high distances and fast rate of fire,Hit and run tactics.
Idea was to have large ,fast,ship that will in ideal condition intercept and position parallel to convoy and deliver quickly fiew salvoes from numerous guns on multiple targets.relatively smaller guns had disadvantage of les firepower per shell, but 280 mm was more than enough to kill any ship but battleship,and those light guns were easy to stabilise on rough seas giving greater precision, and had much greater rate of fire.
Sharnhorst sunked HMS Glorious carrier and 2 destroyers from distance of 24 000m(24 kilometers)with quick serie of salvoes in a fiew minutes.
I believe HOI III will give possibility to have "real" distinctive convoy raiders,not just "confection"of generalised tipe IV battlecruisers as in HOI 2.
Last edited:
Historically, armor was the least important quality. Speed and firepower were indeed most important as denoted by the Battlecruiser design. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both Battelcruisers and had Battleship class guns, and Cruiser speed. To be able to get such speed, armor had to be sacrificed. While their armor was heavier than CAs, it was no where near equivilant to a Battleship.
Sort of off topic, but an interesting historical note, the Scharnhorst is largely credited for the longest range hit by gunfire ever. At approximately 26km IIRC. Thats outrageous range for a gunfight and was probably just luck, but still.
Is it 26 km ? I tought 24,nevermind it was horrific distance anyway.
One word-excellent gun laying radar and excellent guns.She hit allso 2 destroyers escorting carrier at simillar distance .
Last edited:
The folly of Fisherian compromises was already realized well after Battle of Jutland. Saying that armor would have reduced speed in WW2 era is generally false. It would have simply resulted in bigger ship and more powerful engines to handle with the increased weight while maintaining design speed.
Interwar treaties limiting displacement somewhat hapered effective design, resulting in many of the "Washington-type cruisers" being rather thinly skinned. Some countries also continued to produce light "scout cruisers" a type of ship made obsolete by aircraft, which too were generally rather light on armor. In some cases, these scout cruisers evolved into properly armored warships, as seen with the Italian Condottiere types.
Generally, these are the only cases where armor was compromised for speed and/or armament during WW2 era on capital ships (destroyers and smaller were always poorly armored). That is, they were not armored against their own main battery as per standard practise. There are also some extreme examples, like the overgunned cruiser sized panzerchiffes or the American 16" gun armed battleships (due to the abnormal power of their 16" shells despite their caliber).
All surviving "true" battlecruisers, Renown and Kongo class' were taken in and up armored during interwar era. Though they were still not armored against their own guns.
Carrier design followed different philosophies and for example merchant ship conversions could not usually be properly armored and usually were not very fast either.
Scharnhorst class was a particularily heavily armored vessel, with some 14" of belt. It was also a class wasted (cost-efficiency-wise) on it's role as convoy raider, even the panzerschiffes were. It did have impact on tying up British BB resources, but one would wager that a large precentage of them would have been kept with home fleet anyway, rather than being sent somewhere that mattered (like Pacific). An effective light cruiser fleet, ala WW1, would most likely have been much more effective convoy raiding force.
Scharnhorst was also classed as battleship by Germans, it wasn't really a battlecruiser, as much as a small BB.
You are right in praising the successes of German radar FC in early war. Germans were sometimes hitting with their first salvos, which would have been hard without radar. In fact, the 24km (26k yard) hit on Glorious is possibly the longest ship-to-ship artillery hit ever scored. Which is why I think that around 24-26kms should be the max effective gunnery range for ships in HoI3, instead of the HoI2 system where battleships constantly positioned themselves to fire over the horizon.
Interwar treaties limiting displacement somewhat hapered effective design, resulting in many of the "Washington-type cruisers" being rather thinly skinned. Some countries also continued to produce light "scout cruisers" a type of ship made obsolete by aircraft, which too were generally rather light on armor. In some cases, these scout cruisers evolved into properly armored warships, as seen with the Italian Condottiere types.
Generally, these are the only cases where armor was compromised for speed and/or armament during WW2 era on capital ships (destroyers and smaller were always poorly armored). That is, they were not armored against their own main battery as per standard practise. There are also some extreme examples, like the overgunned cruiser sized panzerchiffes or the American 16" gun armed battleships (due to the abnormal power of their 16" shells despite their caliber).
All surviving "true" battlecruisers, Renown and Kongo class' were taken in and up armored during interwar era. Though they were still not armored against their own guns.
Carrier design followed different philosophies and for example merchant ship conversions could not usually be properly armored and usually were not very fast either.
Scharnhorst class was a particularily heavily armored vessel, with some 14" of belt. It was also a class wasted (cost-efficiency-wise) on it's role as convoy raider, even the panzerschiffes were. It did have impact on tying up British BB resources, but one would wager that a large precentage of them would have been kept with home fleet anyway, rather than being sent somewhere that mattered (like Pacific). An effective light cruiser fleet, ala WW1, would most likely have been much more effective convoy raiding force.
Scharnhorst was also classed as battleship by Germans, it wasn't really a battlecruiser, as much as a small BB.
You are right in praising the successes of German radar FC in early war. Germans were sometimes hitting with their first salvos, which would have been hard without radar. In fact, the 24km (26k yard) hit on Glorious is possibly the longest ship-to-ship artillery hit ever scored. Which is why I think that around 24-26kms should be the max effective gunnery range for ships in HoI3, instead of the HoI2 system where battleships constantly positioned themselves to fire over the horizon.
Last edited:
For a ship of line yes... but here we are talking about raiders. For a raider the important things are:
- have large action radius
- be fast enough to disengage at will
- be armored enough to survive the lucky hits during disengaging
- have guns powerful enough to sunk a merchant ship (basically any workable gun)
- have large ammo storage (smaller guns with their smaller ammo helps a lot)
The importance order is: endurance, speed, armor and firepower is a distant forth
So I think Scharnhorst was the perfect raider. And it was also good for a fleet in being unit since a cruiser was no match to her, so it forced the Britons to use battleship convoys (i.e. larger, slower, less frequent convoys)... so by simply posing threat it decreased the efficiency of British supply system.
Gneisenau class actually had armor nearly comparable to the Bismarck class. Their guns were too small, though, at 11" which was supposed to be remedied by installing 15" later in the war. Of course that never happened, but if it had the ships would almost certainly be BBs in more than just name. What you said above is more relevant to the Dunkerque, which had lighter armor than the Gneisenau, but larger guns.
As to the topic, I would love to see the capital/screen ration altered somewhat, so that single capital ships could go raiding. Also I hope to see the detection of a single ship become a difficult task. This would work for subs even better. Single sub stacks would be wonderful.
I was recently watching one of the classic war films; Sink the Bismarck and so I am glad to read this discussion and hear positive feedback with regard to what HoI3 has in store for naval combat.
It shouldn't be impossible for ships to re-fuel and re-stock themselves at sea, especially when there were examples of ships doing so @ neutral ports during the war.
The importance of convoys and convoy raiding HAS to be central to the naval combat system of HoI3, and it shouldn't be a simple system whereby Britain can survive without its convoys, simply because it has huge stacks of resources that will allow it to survive the war - it has to be completely and fundamentally different.
It shouldn't be impossible for ships to re-fuel and re-stock themselves at sea, especially when there were examples of ships doing so @ neutral ports during the war.
The importance of convoys and convoy raiding HAS to be central to the naval combat system of HoI3, and it shouldn't be a simple system whereby Britain can survive without its convoys, simply because it has huge stacks of resources that will allow it to survive the war - it has to be completely and fundamentally different.
noddy102 said:
What if there was a button for "resupply at sea" that worked like the offensive supply button on land units? That is, it costs supplies and fuel and, in the case of ships, it extends their range.
That's a good idea - but it would also have to involve the use of the pool of convoys.
You would need to have the right doctorine, no one came even close to the masterpiece example of the US Navy in underway-replenishment.
Well hopefully with you having to purchase resources with money, rather than trade excess supplies and energy (which is what I always did) you should be lighter on supplies and therefor as the UK be in dire need to your supply convoys. I should hope though...