No light carriers
- Thread starter MightyPleb
- Start date
-
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.
Why not simply build two variants of CVs?
With the new modular construction options you can create CVs for different roles, no?
A tad early to make a final judgement on that, isn't it? For the US a massive carrier fleet with 2 variants sounds enticing in my book.
In this WWW Episode you can see a bunch of Japanese carriers with their plane capacity (at around 45:36):
The Ryujo has a capacity of 45, the Kaga and Akagi have a capacity of 54. Sadly I don't think you can see, what level of deck capacity increase they already have and the numbers are somewhat "uneven" with previous numbers. It might be that they have have increased the basic capacity of the early carrier class to 45 instead of 30 and the Kaga and Akagi are already somewhat upgraded maybe by one point for 9 additional planes per point or - probably more likely - by 3 for 3 planes per point.
The Ryujo has a capacity of 45, the Kaga and Akagi have a capacity of 54. Sadly I don't think you can see, what level of deck capacity increase they already have and the numbers are somewhat "uneven" with previous numbers. It might be that they have have increased the basic capacity of the early carrier class to 45 instead of 30 and the Kaga and Akagi are already somewhat upgraded maybe by one point for 9 additional planes per point or - probably more likely - by 3 for 3 planes per point.
The question will be whether the base CV variants can be wrangled to provide a decent CVL. If the wiki is anything to go by, earlier CVs had terrible AA (worse than destroyers!) so up-speeding an early CV wouldn't quite do it, and I'd expect later CVs to have too much capacity. The other issue is production cost - even the earlier CVs tended to be heavier than the later CVLs, some of the very late CVLs/very early CVs notwithstanding. We'll see soon enough either way.
- 1
I'll be honest, I always assumed that the Japanese used the same classifications for carriers that the USA/UK did. Based on your post, I assumed wrong. I would be interested in hearing any information you could share on how the Japanese classified their carriers. For example, were Shokaku and Taiho classified the same as Hiryu/Unryu, etc? And what about the BB/BC conversions? Thanks.
Couple of issues with using a level I CV to make the equivalent of a CVL in game based on the stats in the Wiki. It's slower than the the later carriers so it slows down your fleet speed. It really shouldn't. Being able to keep up with a battle fleet is one of the hard dividing lines between a CVE and a CVL. Also, it is still expensive. A Level I CV is 24,750 in total cost. A level III CL is 10,125. Now I don't know how expensive the Independence was but I doubt converting a Cleveland to an Independence cost 2.5 times the original cost of the cruiser.** It's not impossible though, the primary reason they were built was speed of construction not money savings vs. an Essex so...
Also, remember the air wing has to be paid for separately in game so that isn't included in the initial cost list above. So you are looking to spend XP to increase engine and raise speed to bring it up to fleet standards.
**If anybody has historical dollar figures and knows better please share.
You're right is is too early to know for sure but I think Schwarzkatze is correct and that naval XP is going to be more precious than land or air XP and therefore spent more dearly. Using it to create a CVL out of an old CV doesn't sound like something I would want to do but we'll see.
@Axe99, this might just apply to the Independence and not the CVL's of other navies but the AAA suite of an Independence CVL was only 2 quad, 8 dual 40 mm AA, and 16 single 20 mm AA. It didn't carry any 5"/38's. So worse AAA than a destroyer might actually fit history. Like I said, this might not apply to RN or Japanese designs. The Saipan's were a little better, 5 quad, 11 dual 40 mm AA, and 16 dual 20 mm AA but still no 5"/38's.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
I don't have any firm answer, as I find their decision making regarding CV construction strange as well. The only explanations I have seen in any sources just kind of state in passing that the Japanese went with the Unryus (Soryu+ basically) as a cost saving measure over more Shokaku-class or definitely Taiho. As you note, such cost cutting seems questionable. I swore one of my books had prices for the various classes, but I can't find that information at the moment.
- 1
After some painstaking efforts digging through digital archives, it appears that either the classification documents were throughly burnt or the subdivision of carriers were only colloquial terms. I was able to find a few "medium carrier" used in (real) AAR, but those are basically in fantasy land. The only document with some quality is this, a wartime fleet organization chart (proposal) for 1941 made in 1935, the divisions 1Sf (Ryujo, Hosho) under fleet 1F, 2Sf (Akagi, Kaga) and 3Sf (Soryu, Hiryu) under 2F are labelled 小航母(small carrier), 大航母(large carrier), and 中航母(medium carrier). An oddity here is that carriers in 1~4Sf are called 航母, while 5~6Sf are called 空母, I don't know if that's supposed to mean anything.
BTW, does anyone know any websites that allows hovering annotations like how danbooru does it? Hard-translating the picture seems a bit hard in this case.
-----
Edit: Source is "昭和１６年度（１９４１年） 帝国海軍戦時編制（案） 昭和１０年２月１２日" on JACAR
BTW, does anyone know any websites that allows hovering annotations like how danbooru does it? Hard-translating the picture seems a bit hard in this case.
-----
Edit: Source is "昭和１６年度（１９４１年） 帝国海軍戦時編制（案） 昭和１０年２月１２日" on JACAR
Last edited:
- 2
It gets a bit tricky here, as there's subjective judgement as to the value of long-range (5") vs medium and close-in (40mm and 20mm) AA, but looking at the US for the different eras (and noting that Wiki figures are probably but not definitely correct for launch):
1922 DD - Clemson class - two 3 inch/23 AA guns. HoI4 AA of 2.
1922 CV - Lexington class - 12 5 inch guns and 48 0.5 cal MGs. HoI4 AA of 1.
1936 DD - Bagley class - 5 4-inch guns and 4 0.50 cal MGs. HoI4 AA of 5
1936 CV - Yorktown class - 8 5-inch guns, 16 1.1-inch guns and 24 0.5 cal MGs. HoI4 AA of 4.
1940 DD - Fletcher Class - 5 5-inch guns, 4 1.1-inch guns and 4 20mm MGs. HoI4 AA of 7.
1940 CV - Essex class - 12 5-inch guns, 32 40mm guns, 46 20mm guns, HoI4 AA of 4.
1940 CVL - Independence - 24 40mm, 22 20mm.
1944 DD - Gearing Class - 6 5-inch guns, 12 40mm, 11 20mm, HoI4 AA of 9
1944 CV - Midway - 18 5-inch guns, 84 40mm, 68 20mm, HoI4 AA of 6 (!)
1944 CVL - Saipan - 40 40mm, 32 20mm.
I'd give the AA on an Independence as stronger than any of those DDs except the Gearing, which I'd probably put it level (wet finger in the air assessment).
That said, I think the AA values for CVs are the biggest issue here. If that was sorted, then equating the Lexington's initial AA with an Independence probably wouldn't be the worst approximation in the world.
- 1
I think it's a very deliberate approach to making naval ships have more defined roles - CLs and DDs have their AA over-emphasised, while capital ships have it under-emphasised (a 1944 SHBB has substantially less AA than a 1944 BB, which makes no sense at all unless you were going for the 'rigid gameplay roles > historical characteristics' approach).
As an aside, given the two approachs I'm planning on two naval mods - one fairly early on (within 3-4 months) with updated OOBs and naval stats, but just using HoI4 units (as long as giving the various ships historically appropriate stats doesn't have the AI tying itself in knots) and then a more detailed one down the track (which will take advantage of the work for the simple one, so one won't hold back the other).
If people were interested, I've got the data to put together a quick and dirty 'more historically plausible naval combat stats' for the HoI4 classes pretty quickly (probably the first weekend after HoI4 comes out, more or less)? It's going through the ship classes ship-by-ship that takes the time.
- 1
They were shifting from quality to quantity: rather than ordering two or four like they usually did with their capital ship designs, the IJN ordered sixteen Unryuu-class carriers. While Unryuu herself was ordered before they declared war on the US (perhaps the original intention was a carrier force that could be built quickly to defend all the territory they expected to add?), the rest were ordered after Midway when they desperately needed replacement carriers.
- 1
That still does not mean it is a light carrier. Light carries took only a fraction of the time and resources to make, compared to a fleet carrier.
- 1
It occurred to me that the answer might also be something like the US approach to Essex class carriers. "Hey, we need six of these - maybe eight." Then war breaks out. "Um, guys? Can you just keep cranking them out? We're going to need... um... many."
So maybe Japan planned to build their usual 2 or even 4, and when war broke out they just extended the order? Or perhaps they thought a bigger number of flight decks over-rode other considerations?
A list of Japanese errors around WW2 would be very long indeed, and this is not a very significant one. But it does just seem odd to me that they would choose to build a lot of small to medium-sized carriers that are less efficient with fuel and materials and crews, and which are operationally hard to group and operate.
I'm probably making too much of this so I'll stop now.
Axe, one consideration for AA is the various arcs of fire. Standard surface vessels tend to have a roughly pyramidal superstructure, while carriers usually hang their AA in buckets off the side of the flight deck. Most carrier AA guns would have very sharply restricted arcs of fire because of this placement. And on the same point, the ships surrounding the carrier would (mostly) shoot out away from the center. Without careful attention, the carrier could be shooting more or less out at its own escorts (even high-angle shells come down eventually).
My father served in the Pacific in WW2 (US 6th Army) and told me how carefully the ships in his transport group planned out their AA firing arcs so as to avoid hitting each other.
For US ships, don't count any 5" except the 5'/38 dual-purpose. One reason for refitting the old battleships after Pearl Harbor was because their old 5" guns had no AA capability.
I think I remember hearing that the 40mm was considered the most effective AA weapon of the war but I can't swear to it. The US 5"/38 was widely considered the best dual-purpose gun of the war and US AA gun control was as good as anyone's, so US (and some British) ships probably deserve an edge in AA.
So maybe Japan planned to build their usual 2 or even 4, and when war broke out they just extended the order? Or perhaps they thought a bigger number of flight decks over-rode other considerations?
A list of Japanese errors around WW2 would be very long indeed, and this is not a very significant one. But it does just seem odd to me that they would choose to build a lot of small to medium-sized carriers that are less efficient with fuel and materials and crews, and which are operationally hard to group and operate.
I'm probably making too much of this so I'll stop now.
Axe, one consideration for AA is the various arcs of fire. Standard surface vessels tend to have a roughly pyramidal superstructure, while carriers usually hang their AA in buckets off the side of the flight deck. Most carrier AA guns would have very sharply restricted arcs of fire because of this placement. And on the same point, the ships surrounding the carrier would (mostly) shoot out away from the center. Without careful attention, the carrier could be shooting more or less out at its own escorts (even high-angle shells come down eventually).
My father served in the Pacific in WW2 (US 6th Army) and told me how carefully the ships in his transport group planned out their AA firing arcs so as to avoid hitting each other.
For US ships, don't count any 5" except the 5'/38 dual-purpose. One reason for refitting the old battleships after Pearl Harbor was because their old 5" guns had no AA capability.
I think I remember hearing that the 40mm was considered the most effective AA weapon of the war but I can't swear to it. The US 5"/38 was widely considered the best dual-purpose gun of the war and US AA gun control was as good as anyone's, so US (and some British) ships probably deserve an edge in AA.
Last edited:
- 1
Even if they built more Shokaku or Taiho, would they be finished before the war ended?
@Director for your reference here is a page that details Japan's shipbuilding plan in the 30's and 40's.
Everything I always read on the subject was the Shokaku and Taiho designs were more complicated and required more resources to build so they focused on the Unryu design to try to get more flight decks on the water quicker.
So to answer Scharzkatze's question, my inexpert opinion is no, they wouldn't have been completed by war's end.
I guess that was good for our side. The Shokaku's were good ships.
Everything I always read on the subject was the Shokaku and Taiho designs were more complicated and required more resources to build so they focused on the Unryu design to try to get more flight decks on the water quicker.
So to answer Scharzkatze's question, my inexpert opinion is no, they wouldn't have been completed by war's end.
I guess that was good for our side. The Shokaku's were good ships.
- 1
That's meant to be a rhetorical question
That's my point, even the Unryū's barely made before the end of the war, and of the three completed, Katsuragi was fitted with destroyer engines to rush the completion (or meet the original schedual), so if they opted for more Shōkaku or Taihō instead of Unryū, the ships likely won't be finished before 1945.
While light carriers probably could be ready earlier, they give less bang for the buck and Japan didn't appear to have enough military shipyards to spare—all IJN vessels over 10k tons were built in Kure, Yokosuka, Nagasaki, or Kobe, and beside carriers, almost no warships exceeding 10k tons in displacement were built during the war, so I think Japan didn't have the capacity to build light carriers and full-sized carriers at the same time, and Unryū was the best choice.
That's my point, even the Unryū's barely made before the end of the war, and of the three completed, Katsuragi was fitted with destroyer engines to rush the completion (or meet the original schedual), so if they opted for more Shōkaku or Taihō instead of Unryū, the ships likely won't be finished before 1945.
While light carriers probably could be ready earlier, they give less bang for the buck and Japan didn't appear to have enough military shipyards to spare—all IJN vessels over 10k tons were built in Kure, Yokosuka, Nagasaki, or Kobe, and beside carriers, almost no warships exceeding 10k tons in displacement were built during the war, so I think Japan didn't have the capacity to build light carriers and full-sized carriers at the same time, and Unryū was the best choice.
- 2
