Panzerschiff too weak?

[hkrommel]

raider warships like Bismarck operating in small groups, that can achieve local superiority even against convoys escorted by capital ships. That was the plan - that the RN would have to spread their battleships across enough convoys, that Bismarck's task force could overpower them one at a time.

Wouldn't that also make the capital ships very vulnerable to submarines? They couldn't use their speed and zig-zagging that combat formations usually used due to the slow transports, so you could theoretically get a really cheap way to take out valuable targets with submarines. I have no idea if this works in-game but it could be interesting.

 

[Louella]

Wouldn't that also make the capital ships very vulnerable to submarines? They couldn't use their speed and zig-zagging that combat formations usually used due to the slow transports, so you could theoretically get a really cheap way to take out valuable targets with submarines. I have no idea if this works in-game but it could be interesting.

Yes. It would. iirc, that was the central idea of the Z-plan. A small number of heavy surface ships, with an aircraft carrier, and submarines as well, to achieve local superiority against thinly spread RN forces, and whittle away at the RN. And I think it would work ingame.

Historically, the risk of submarine attack was considered to be less than the risk of heavy surface raiders, early in the war at least, and the RN had the Revenge class battleships, which were by that time a bit too slow to be really useful in front-line service. On at least one occasion, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were in position to attack convoys, but were deterred upon spotting one of the R-class battleships.

 

[Ossiv]

Historically, the risk of submarine attack was considered to be less than the risk of heavy surface raiders, early in the war at least, and the RN had the Revenge class battleships, which were by that time a bit too slow to be really useful in front-line service. On at least one occasion, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were in position to attack convoys, but were deterred upon spotting one of the R-class battleships.

Modern battleships, with large torpedo bulkheads, were not easily sunk by torpedoes and their cruising speed was faster than submarines' top speed, so risk of loosing them for sub torpedoes was very low (aerial torpedoes were a far more dangerous threath).
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau took a match with BC Renown during the Norwegian campagn in 1940. Renown was first hit twice with German 11-inchers, with minor damage. Then Renown hit Gneisenau with a 15-incher much harder and the Germans retreated. After that the Germans knew 11-inchers had too weak punch against capital ships, so avoiding even old Revenge-class BBs was logical. If Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had got 6 15-inchers (as planned) instead of 9 11-inchers, they would have been much more useful capital ships.

 

[hkrommel]

Modern battleships, with large torpedo bulkheads, were not easily sunk by torpedoes and their cruising speed was faster than submarines' top speed, so risk of loosing them for sub torpedoes was very low (aerial torpedoes were a far more dangerous threath).

Depending on what you mean by "modern battleships" this isn't entirely accurate. The Royal Navy lost three battleships during the war. Of those, two (HMS Barham and HMS Royal Oak, commissioned in 1915 and 1916, respectively) were lost to submarines. They also lost five aircraft carriers. Of those, three (HMS Ark Royal, HMS Courageous, and HMS Eagle) were lost to submarines. Of those, only the Eagle I suspect had lackluster torpedo protection, since it was a pre-WWI design that was converted. For escort carriers, two of three (HMS Audacity and HMS Avenger) were sunk by submarines.

I'd have to do more research than I frankly have time for to be absolutely sure of the torpedo protection on each of these ships, but suffice it to say submarines were a very real threat to capital ships if the numbers are any indication.

 

[Klausewitz]

Modern battleships, with large torpedo bulkheads, were not easily sunk by torpedoes and their cruising speed was faster than submarines' top speed, so risk of loosing them for sub torpedoes was very low (aerial torpedoes were a far more dangerous threath).

Convoy duty neutralizes the speed advantage.

 

[Ossiv]

Depending on what you mean by "modern battleships" this isn't entirely accurate. The Royal Navy lost three battleships during the war. Of those, two (HMS Barham and HMS Royal Oak, commissioned in 1915 and 1916, respectively) were lost to submarines. They also lost five aircraft carriers. Of those, three (HMS Ark Royal, HMS Courageous, and HMS Eagle) were lost to submarines. Of those, only the Eagle I suspect had lackluster torpedo protection, since it was a pre-WWI design that was converted. For escort carriers, two of three (HMS Audacity and HMS Avenger) were sunk by submarines.

I'd have to do more research than I frankly have time for to be absolutely sure of the torpedo protection on each of these ships, but suffice it to say submarines were a very real threat to capital ships if the numbers are any indication.

Both Barham and Royal Oak were designed and laid down before WWI, so I don't consider them "modern" by WWII standards. Carriers are not battleships, so they don't count on sub vs BB.

About those two BBs, Royal Oak was torpedoed on anchor, so she was an easy target. After WWI she had got torpedo bulkheads retrofitted. Royal Oak was first hit with one torpedo that had practically no effect. After hearing the explosion and not knowing what it was, her crew did not make alarm in Scapa Flow, but went back to beds! The sub turned and fired a miss with aft tube, turned again, reloaded forward tubes and then got three more hits that sunk Royal Oak. If it's crew had done something after the first torpedo hit, like alarmed a destroyer ormoved to another anchoring place, she would not have sunk.

Barham was torpedoed when sailing in formation protected by destroyers, who did nothing when an ASDIC operator detected an underwater object nearby. Barham was simultaneously hit by three torpedoes and sunk after her main magazines exploded, not by water getting inside the ship. I found information claiming that explosion was caused by her 4 inch ammo being stored on corridors next to main magazines, instead of purpose built 4 inch ammo magazines. If that is true, she might have survived, if ammo was properly stored. Has anyone read HMS Barham's Board of Enquiry report?

 

[hkrommel]

Both Barham and Royal Oak were designed and laid down before WWI, so I don't consider them "modern" by WWII standards. Carriers are not battleships, so they don't count on sub vs BB.

1. Then there weren't very many "modern" ships. By the time WWI started torpedo protection was already quite advanced, the largest leaps in technology occurring between the turn of the century and around 1910. Those ships were also launched mid-WWI so you need to take that into account too, the design they're laid down with is not always the one they're launched with.
2. The point was about capital ships, not just BBs.
3. The Eagle and Courageous were both converted carriers, which bore the torpedo protections of their predecessors.

About those two BBs, Royal Oak was torpedoed on anchor, so she was an easy target. After WWI she had got torpedo bulkheads retrofitted. Royal Oak was first hit with one torpedo that had practically no effect. After hearing the explosion and not knowing what it was, her crew did not make alarm in Scapa Flow, but went back to beds! The sub turned and fired a miss with aft tube, turned again, reloaded forward tubes and then got three more hits that sunk Royal Oak. If it's crew had done something after the first torpedo hit, like alarmed a destroyer ormoved to another anchoring place, she would not have sunk.

A BB moving at convoy speed is also an easy target. You also seem to be moving goalposts here. The point was never about whether crews did the right things in battle or not, so I fail to see how that's relevant. The point is the following:
1. Surface raiders at-large force the British to escort convoys with enough firepower to fight these raiders
2. These escorts will be capital ships
3. Since these ships will be unable to move at their normal speeds, rather at the much slower convoy speed, this will make them vulnerable to submarines

You countered by saying that modern capital ships would have torpedo protection that would prevent their sinking by submarines. I'm still waiting for you to show why that's the case. There are several examples of relatively modern capital ships being sunk by submarines. The point is not what, precisely, the torpedoes did to sink the ship, the point is not how many torpedoes were fired (I mean seriously, what Uboat captain worth his salt is going to not fire a full spread at a freaking battleship!?), the point is not whether the destroyer crews properly detected the submarine.

I found information claiming that explosion was caused by her 4 inch ammo being stored on corridors next to main magazines, instead of purpose built 4 inch ammo magazines. If that is true, she might have survived, if ammo was properly stored. Has anyone read HMS Barham's Board of Enquiry report?

That was something very common in the Royal Navy, and was the cause of the British losses at Jutland as well. Basically the idea was that if your ammunition was more accessible, you get more shots off more quickly, winning the battle before you get hit. It's a gamble that allowed the British to have unparalleled speed in firing their guns, but left them vulnerable to flash fires.

 

[Secret Master]

It’s worth mentioning that in HOI4, Germany (and the US) can do things to protect their BBs from torpedoes.

First of all, Germany and the US have access to the raiding designer. Among other things, it will reduce the visibility and increase the speed of all ships, including BBs. Both factors impact the ability of all weapons fire, including torps, hitting ships.


So, if you stack raiding designer with tier 3 engines and don’t put a ton of speed reducing modules on the ship, and the run the BC armor scheme instead of full BB armor, then you can make a ship that shouldn’t be too scared of submarines.

It’s not like it was when MtG was released where you could make a BB that was immune to torpedoes, but you can still make one that has little to fear from submarines.

 

[xtfoster]

There are several examples of relatively modern capital ships being sunk by submarines.

As far as I can tell there were 3 Battleships sunk solely by submarines during WWII.
HMS Barham by U-331
HMS Royal Oak by U-47 while at anchor
Kongo by USS Sealion
There were also 9 Aircraft Carriers sunk by submarines.
Akitsu Maru by USS Queenfish (basically an auxiliary carrier, she only carried 8 aircraft in a combat role, 30 as an aircraft ferry...and only capable of 20 knots)
Taihō by USS Albacore
Shinano by USS Archerfish
Shōkaku by USS Cavella
Chūyō (converted Passenger/Cargo ship) by USS Sailfish
Unryū by USS Redfish
Shin'yō (converted Ocean Liner) by USS Spadefish
Taiyō (converted Passenger/Cargo ship) by USS Rasher (she was also torpedoed twice before (by USS Trout for negligible damage and USS Cabrilla which required about 2 months to repair)
HMS Courageous by U-29

The point is not what, precisely, the torpedoes did to sink the ship, the point is not how many torpedoes were fired (I mean seriously, what Uboat captain worth his salt is going to not fire a full spread at a freaking battleship!?)

One who was trying to conserve his torpedoes for his primary target, the transports. Once the Germans realized they couldn't do Sealion, they also realized the only way they could 'defeat' the UK was to isolate them. Attacking Capital Ships was not a priority, even ASW ships were secondary targets and only attacked if needed to clear the way to the transports.

 

[hkrommel]

One who was trying to conserve his torpedoes for his primary target, the transports. Once the Germans realized they couldn't do Sealion, they also realized the only way they could 'defeat' the UK was to isolate them. Attacking Capital Ships was not a priority, even ASW ships were secondary targets and only attacked if needed to clear the way to the transports.

But we're talking about an alternate history where surface raiders see more use, so the strategy would be different. Fewer BBs means the Bismarck has an easier time of things. Capital ships are just too tempting a target in this scenario.

 

[Ossiv]

As far as I can tell there were 3 Battleships sunk solely by submarines during WWII.
HMS Barham by U-331
HMS Royal Oak by U-47 while at anchor
Kongo by USS Sealion

These three were all designed before WWI and built in the UK, also the Kongo for Japan. Submarines and torpedoes showed their potential during WWI, not before, so during their design phase torpedo protection did not play an important role. They got torpedo bulkheads retrofitted after WWI, but I am not a Navy specialist and cannot tell if retrofit is as good as original; probably not. Without torpedo bulkheads BBs were easily sunk by torpedoes, so they were a must for WWII.

Of these three, HMS Royal Oak was sunk while at anchor. The other two were torpedoed while sailing at warship formations with destroyer escorts, not slowed down by convoys, so they do count, although both of them were relatively old. However, I was not claiming BBs (or BCs) were immune to sub torpedoes. About the term modern in WWII context, I don't consider pre-WWI designed dreadnoughts and battlecruisers "modern", without experiences gained during WWI. Designed after the Battle of Jutland could be a starting point for "modern", since that was a real-life test for capital ships.

 

[Klausewitz]

@Ossiv:
Have you ever wondered why the original name of the "destroyer" was "torpedoboat destroyer" if torpedoes were no threat?
The only reason torpedo protection became a thing was that very fast, hard to hit torpedo boats had had some success doing bad things to capital ships.
The Bianca Encalada was the first ship to fall to torpedoes in 1891.
In the Russo-Japanese war slow torpedoes with very obvious bubble paths had sunk one battleship, two armored cruisers and two destroyers.
At the same time the deployment of torpedoboats had also made the deployment of "torpedo gunboats" a thing, specifically to hunt torpedoboats.
Which does not make a lot of sense if torpedoes were not a problem prior to WW1.

 

[hkrommel]

Submarines and torpedoes showed their potential during WWI,

This is 100% untrue. They saw effective use in fleet battles as early as the First Sino-Japanese War. By the time WWI rolled around they were common to all navies of note.

The Bianca Encalada was the first ship to fall to torpedoes in 1891.

Wasn't the first even earlier, during one of the Russo-Turkish wars?

 

[Ossiv]

We talked about submarines torpedoes. Do you want to change the subject to torpedoboats?

 

[hkrommel]

We talked about submarines torpedoes. Do you want to change the subject to torpedoboats?

Submarines and torpedoes showed their potential during WWI,

"Submarines and torpedoes." Not "submarine torpedoes." In any event you haven't shown why the differences matter.

 

[ow592]

back to topic?

 

[Klausewitz]

Sure.
Don't cruiser guns have a bit too much penetration?
The Panzerschiffe were supposed to be armored against the guns of cruiser and be able to run from the guns of BBs.
In game they cruisers pen them and they try to stand against battleships... and the kicker is that heavy cruiser, even cruiser II which are contemporary with the Panzerschiffe, can pack more heat, more heavy firepower and heavy pen, than a Panzerschiff.
Which means apart from their range they are all around underwhelming.
You can make them work but for everything they can do even HEAVY CRUISERS do it better.
More pen, more firepower, more speed, same armor.
In summation I would have to agree that Panzerschiffe are too weak.
As a way of fixing that... the "heavy turret" they have does not seem to do much good... maybe change that?

 

[Xiziz]

At the moment, the panzershiffe is rather useless, the ones you have are best used as surface raiders with 1 CL36+ and 3 DD36+. Set engagement rules to low risk. Last game I still had one raiding the Atlantic in 42, one just sunk and lost one in 40. They do a lot of convoy kills.

As a balance pass they should be brought more in line with cruisers, at the moment they are more in line with dreadnoughts and coastal defence ships(trading the hp of the former and mounts of the later for range, which is near useless with basing rights).

If I had time to test I would change the following on the hull: Surface visibility decreaded to 17-18, bump speed to 22-23knts, HP to 250-300, reduce cost to 2500 and increasing fuel consumption to 40-50. Maybe even add some base armour value to the hull.

This should force the use of BC/CV to hunt them down, atm CA are more than enough.

 

[ow592]

@podcat
can we have better Panzerschiff?

 

[Caeric]

At the moment, the panzershiffe is rather useless, the ones you have are best used as surface raiders with 1 CL36+ and 3 DD36+. Set engagement rules to low risk. Last game I still had one raiding the Atlantic in 42, one just sunk and lost one in 40. They do a lot of convoy kills.

As a balance pass they should be brought more in line with cruisers, at the moment they are more in line with dreadnoughts and coastal defence ships(trading the hp of the former and mounts of the later for range, which is near useless with basing rights).

If I had time to test I would change the following on the hull: Surface visibility decreaded to 17-18, bump speed to 22-23knts, HP to 250-300, reduce cost to 2500 and increasing fuel consumption to 40-50. Maybe even add some base armour value to the hull.

This should force the use of BC/CV to hunt them down, atm CA are more than enough.

Completely agree, Admiral Graf Spee, despite being outnumbered 3:1 by enemy cruisers managed to cripple all but 1 of her 3 adversaries, of course at the cost of heavy damage on her own. But in the end I reckon that CA's and both their derivative special classes need a bit of a balance pass in terms of capability and cost. None of them or cost effective or particularly useful outside of a few niche cases atm it seems.