CVs became the king of the waves, the were not that effective when they were first developed. We have the benefit of historical hindsight.
- 3
Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, and Graf Spee
- Thread starter perujuan
- 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.
CVs became the king of the waves, the were not that effective when they were first developed. We have the benefit of historical hindsight.
They were first developed in 1915~ There were plenty of Admirals who championed the power of the Aircraft Carrier prewar. So i don't agree. 30 bombers armed with torpedo's is immensely more useful then a Battleship that requires far too much to become relevant.
Secondly...if it was hindsight...why isn't it as powerful as it is? It doesn't matter if we can look back and know it was the best. That doesn't mean battleship should be better. It should be represented as is..not view points of people who were wrong about the Carrier.
If you want Battleships to be powerful what you do is simulate AA nets. There by forcing naval setups to be focused on defending against Carrier attack. They can be nulled...the issue is no one figured that out. If you can null or negate a Carrier's Airfleet it's just a hunk of metal. My point is Battleships can be relevant you just have to cancel out airpower and the best way to do that in WW2 was airpower. It shouldn't just be innate. Shouldn't just be a given that battleships are effective as Carriers...to me that's silly and not historically accurate at all. THEY can be (battleships) but the problem was it struggled to be in the right place at the right time because of it's poor maneuver ability.
How to cancel out a Carrier. Keep the fleet to a local airport. Use the land fleet to destroy the enemy airfleet. You've successfully nulled a carrier. It's not a hard thing to do in-game from the looks of it. I don't think BBs need a buff. They just need the right thinking and game mechanics to allow them to be good. To allow the Battleships to be able to slug like they can. But in the wave of 300 mph, high flying dancing, it's hard to get things going your way when you go 10 knots.
- 1
Year battleships left service in major navies of the victorious powers:
USSR - 1956
US - 1958 (first decommissioned)
UK - 1960
France - 1967
Even this somewhat understates their continued usefulness, as 90% of battleships and 100% of modern battleships were possessed by countries that were allied to one another, giving them little direct competition.
Battleships really cease to have a role when the USSR abandons gun armed cruisers which happens, perhaps unsurprisingly, in the late 50s and early 60s. This actually left a gap in the Western arsenal for an effective surface combatant until the introduction of the Exocet and Harpoon missiles which entered service in 1973 an 1977 respectively, it just didn't matter much because the Soviet surface fleet was so small in comparison to those of its adversaries.
- 2
- 1
USS Iowa shelled during the Gulf War...does that mean it was useful to naval combat? No. It having a hold over doesn't mean anything. Did any nation build anymore battleships? Did any nation use them? The answer I've seen is no from my research. The train stopped when World War 2 stopped. The Predreadnaught class was used in World War 1...but does that mean it was still relevant? No. It just wasn't totally useless.
- 1
No which is why I listed the date at which battleships were first withdrawn. By the 90s they certainly had no surface combat value - they were not holdovers but simply somewhere to sink money that was being doled out by Reagan faster than it could be spent - but that wasn't the case in the late 40s or 50s, when all the Western powers faced budget and more so manpower crunches.
Battleships were certainly less useful in 1955 than they had been in 1945, and less useful still than in 1935, but WWII experience didn't lead them to being immediately withdrawn, or excluded from exercises or war plans. Battleships would have been used in a 40s or 50s "Cold War gone hot" in the same theatres as they had been in WWII: the North Sea and Mediterranean, where geography and weather conditions made it easier to bring fleets to close action, and reduced the proportion of time in which aircraft could be operated. A major factor in the decision of the Western allies not to build more battleships was simply that they had 17 modern battleships (10 US, 5 UK, 2 FR) while the Soviets and Chinese had none, although both the British and French completed battleships after WWII ended.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
Hyperbole. Jeez.
And does it matter? If a battleship is 200 miles away it makes no difference, it's mega guns are still rendered useless.
*Disclaimer* In the game sense I agree that BB's should be a total waste of resources as they should never be allowed to engage a CTF since the CTF should always just maneuver away from the SAG. Even in the Med/NA you can just run away as necessary. You don't need to fling aircraft at your opponent like lemmings if you don't want to. The below is a wider view of the idea that a CTF is always going to be supperior to a SAG or submarine group. *End Disclaimer*
I'm not sure what people are arguing about since none of the narrow views make much sense.
Aircraft carriers in no way rule the waves. What they provided was un-unprecedented power projection in a naval engagement. They became the dominant striking force because it is infinitely cheaper to risk an air wing than even a destroyer. This has to do with the change in doctrine of pure gun combat encouraging decisive engagements to the ambush tactics employed by aircraft carriers avoiding anything approaching gun ranges.
This relies on the entire CTF constantly maneuvering away from the enemy fleet while opportunistically striking with aircraft. This worked well in WWII to the point that gun combat ended because no strong SAG could force combat with a CTF. Post WWII with the improving technology things shifted again. Once submarines could catch CTF and ambush them Carriers became very vulnerable again. Further compounded by the advent of cruise missiles that return the ability of surface combatants to strike at ranges of 1000+km just like aircraft. Remember the Russian Navy just recently fired a cruise missile from the Black Sea into Syria and Diesel boats constantly 'kill' carriers in NATO war games.
It's gotten to the point that many voices in the USA are even calling for the ending of their CTF as their vulnerability to cost ratio is no longer tenable.
And this brings us to the reason why Battle Ships were 'obsolete' by WWII. The IC cost of battle ships only make sense when you need such a large platform to mount bigger guns that can out shoot your opponent (range advantage again) coupled with the armour and mass to survive return fire from smaller guns. Once you remove the need for BFGs then the platform cost to combat utility makes no sense. It's better to distribute that industrial output over many targets that are harder to sink due to diffusion but provide the same striking capacity. This is the same evolution that occured on land. A continual concentration of power as defensive capacity outstrips offensive capacity (up to the fully armoured knight) and then the continued diffusion of power to increase staying power as offensive capacity outstrips defensive capacity (the move away from armour, then ranked infantry to the modern deployment of massively dispersed infantry).
So we get to the point that a battleship provides less combat utility than 2-3 missile destroyers or attack submarines and so even with the introduction of modern cruise missiles there is no reason to build new battleships.
The same thing is happening with air craft carriers today. With the advent of drones and hypersonic weapons we can now keep large, crew-less weapons platforms aloft indefinitely that provide the same standoff striking capability of a CTF at a fraction of the cost, so why build CTFs?
Finally this leads to the last point, which explains why BB's were kept in service, and CV's will be, long after their rendered obsolete in a fleet conflict sense. Concentration of power has very important consequences for support roles. So while diffusion increases suitability which is important when fighting a direct opponent, it makes the combat's platform much less effective supporting other combat operations. Just as on land, planes can never deliver the sustained ordnance that artillery can. If you need to provide fire support from the sea with your ships nothing beats a BB with their multiple 16" guns. This kept them around and in combat all the way to the first gulf war, but only against aysmetric threats where their vulnerabilities weren't a problem (the enemy couldn't shoot back). CTF's are in the same position today. An air wing off a carrier is much more efficient at delivering ordnance than lofting cruise missiles from subs/surface ships. So they will be kept for asymmetric conflict for many more years (probably 50+), but Navy doctrine will evolve towards using drones and stand off weapons to provide zone control at sea.
I'm not sure what people are arguing about since none of the narrow views make much sense.
Aircraft carriers in no way rule the waves. What they provided was un-unprecedented power projection in a naval engagement. They became the dominant striking force because it is infinitely cheaper to risk an air wing than even a destroyer. This has to do with the change in doctrine of pure gun combat encouraging decisive engagements to the ambush tactics employed by aircraft carriers avoiding anything approaching gun ranges.
This relies on the entire CTF constantly maneuvering away from the enemy fleet while opportunistically striking with aircraft. This worked well in WWII to the point that gun combat ended because no strong SAG could force combat with a CTF. Post WWII with the improving technology things shifted again. Once submarines could catch CTF and ambush them Carriers became very vulnerable again. Further compounded by the advent of cruise missiles that return the ability of surface combatants to strike at ranges of 1000+km just like aircraft. Remember the Russian Navy just recently fired a cruise missile from the Black Sea into Syria and Diesel boats constantly 'kill' carriers in NATO war games.
It's gotten to the point that many voices in the USA are even calling for the ending of their CTF as their vulnerability to cost ratio is no longer tenable.
And this brings us to the reason why Battle Ships were 'obsolete' by WWII. The IC cost of battle ships only make sense when you need such a large platform to mount bigger guns that can out shoot your opponent (range advantage again) coupled with the armour and mass to survive return fire from smaller guns. Once you remove the need for BFGs then the platform cost to combat utility makes no sense. It's better to distribute that industrial output over many targets that are harder to sink due to diffusion but provide the same striking capacity. This is the same evolution that occured on land. A continual concentration of power as defensive capacity outstrips offensive capacity (up to the fully armoured knight) and then the continued diffusion of power to increase staying power as offensive capacity outstrips defensive capacity (the move away from armour, then ranked infantry to the modern deployment of massively dispersed infantry).
So we get to the point that a battleship provides less combat utility than 2-3 missile destroyers or attack submarines and so even with the introduction of modern cruise missiles there is no reason to build new battleships.
The same thing is happening with air craft carriers today. With the advent of drones and hypersonic weapons we can now keep large, crew-less weapons platforms aloft indefinitely that provide the same standoff striking capability of a CTF at a fraction of the cost, so why build CTFs?
Finally this leads to the last point, which explains why BB's were kept in service, and CV's will be, long after their rendered obsolete in a fleet conflict sense. Concentration of power has very important consequences for support roles. So while diffusion increases suitability which is important when fighting a direct opponent, it makes the combat's platform much less effective supporting other combat operations. Just as on land, planes can never deliver the sustained ordnance that artillery can. If you need to provide fire support from the sea with your ships nothing beats a BB with their multiple 16" guns. This kept them around and in combat all the way to the first gulf war, but only against aysmetric threats where their vulnerabilities weren't a problem (the enemy couldn't shoot back). CTF's are in the same position today. An air wing off a carrier is much more efficient at delivering ordnance than lofting cruise missiles from subs/surface ships. So they will be kept for asymmetric conflict for many more years (probably 50+), but Navy doctrine will evolve towards using drones and stand off weapons to provide zone control at sea.
Last edited:
- 5
- 4
And what if some people wrote that battleships guns could fire hundreds of miles away. Would you overlook it as an hyperbole ?
IIRC, the devs said that battleships would be somewhat powerful until mid-game and CVs mighty kings of the sea after that.
This partly reflect history as CV techs and more importantly doctrine/operational use evolved during the war. The devs said they buffed BBs because otherwise nobody would build them (because of hindsight) which would be a-historical.
- 1
Well that, and unrealistically if you have a CTF engage a SAG the lighter ships in the CTF will for some reason engage with the SAG which makes litteraly no sense.
You dont need to engage the enemy fleet directly to control the seas, and battleships are very good at indirect control, see fleet in being.
Battleships and Carriers are not ment to be built in large numbers as they do have weaknesses which destroyers and light cruisers will protect them from. For each capital ship you should probably invest as many resources into screen class ships.
Battleships and Carriers are not ment to be built in large numbers as they do have weaknesses which destroyers and light cruisers will protect them from. For each capital ship you should probably invest as many resources into screen class ships.
Last edited:
- 1
In very idealised circumstances this is true.
If you are trying to escort a convoy that is attacked, a carrier escort can withdraw leaving the convoy to its doom. That doesn't necessarily serve your strategic objective.
It also depends on perfect observation. The British lost Glorious because no one was posted to look for ships on the horizon. This was a result of extraordinary laxity and incompetence but you can see the problems fighting ships in persistent rain and high winds that prevent aircraft being launched, or in the Arctic night. Carriers simply aren't very robust in those conditions; you cannot guarantee seeing an enemy before he sees you.
I think it's most accurate to say that battleships are more effective than carriers in certain geographical and weather conditions, and that during the period 1935 to 1965 the range of geographic and weather conditions in which battleships were more effective decreased from most places outside the Pacific to almost nowhere. It was a gradual shift though and in the early and mid 40s there were still a number of places it would be dangerous to fight without any battleships at all.
- 4
How effective something will be depend on how well the enemy preper for it. USA submarines was very effective against japan because japan did not have enough countermessures against them. Air attacks also caused alot more damage to japanese navy then against USA navy for the same reason.
I see your point now on your second post. They still were around. I guess what you are trying to say is that if you don't incentive building battleships it provides unhistorical build up plans by players. Despite what reality does. I can take that as a fair point. As someone posted above...Battleships are just too slow to be of any use.
However in the age of missiles I could see large missled battleship resurface as useful. A large ship that can take a pounding and let out a bigger one. Off-topic. Just a random thought.
What I am trying to say is that battleships were actually valuable in WWII, even with hindsight. Although they may not have been sufficiently valuable to justify their cost, I think there is also a good argument that they were for the UK, Italy, and perhaps Germany (at least, in so far as building any navy at all was worthwhile for Germany). For the US they probably did not justify their cost in the Pacific but the US explicitly planned to fight in Europe as well as the Pacific, so arguably their battleships too were worthwhile.
- 2
- 2
A good battleship design like Iowa is pretty useful. By itself it can pretty much stop any attempt from enemy to rush the fleet with lighter artillery ships and can provide heavy anti air and bombardment while being pretty much unsinkable.
I just need Naval combat to see the importance of them. It seems like every Naval battle ends with them doing much of nothing. I'm sure they have value...I just know one on one the carrier wins almost 95% of the time. The Yamato however I think provides a interesting argument to be had. It took sortie after sortie all trapped and alone. I forget the numbers but If I recall it was a variety of carriers attacking it.
But it is dwarfed for regular battleships of pearl harbor how two sorties basically annihilated the US fleet for 2 whole months.
However @Commissar Yossarian
That was informative. But I do believe aircraft carriers will stay constant.
Especially with the ship stealth materials being developed by DARPA and other US navy projects. Including the F-35 and it's capabilities. It's not perfect but it doesn't take much to shift things around. I think honestly the entire Naval Stealth program is geared towards trying to keep the Carrier relevant. Maybe that's a bad sign. But it would be interesting to see how much Naval combat has changed. We'll never know, thank god. But I doubt it's lost its relevance. Maybe that wasn't your intention but I saw you buying the chalk of the Chinese missile. This seems super off-topic. haha
But it is dwarfed for regular battleships of pearl harbor how two sorties basically annihilated the US fleet for 2 whole months.
However @Commissar Yossarian
That was informative. But I do believe aircraft carriers will stay constant.
Especially with the ship stealth materials being developed by DARPA and other US navy projects. Including the F-35 and it's capabilities. It's not perfect but it doesn't take much to shift things around. I think honestly the entire Naval Stealth program is geared towards trying to keep the Carrier relevant. Maybe that's a bad sign. But it would be interesting to see how much Naval combat has changed. We'll never know, thank god. But I doubt it's lost its relevance. Maybe that wasn't your intention but I saw you buying the chalk of the Chinese missile. This seems super off-topic. haha
Yamato lacked modern anti aircraft guns, a big weakness the japanese navy had and a reason why USA dominated in the pacific.
IT was upgraded I believe and give heavy amounts of AA, right? Initially I know what you said was so. Maybe I'm thinking of a different BB
They added alot of aa gun but they was light ones with an effective range of 3000m which proved to be insuficent to disrupt an air attack. USA moved on to heavier guns which have twice the effective range which is an enormous difference.
German was even worse, light aa guns + no dual purpose guns.
German was even worse, light aa guns + no dual purpose guns.
- 1
- 1
Yamato on its first outfitting (in 1941) had relatively little AA. When it was refitted in 1944 (if i recall, maybe it was in 45) it was outfitted with a crapload of AA guns, but they were inferior to US AA.
The easiest comparison is the weight of shells being thrown up per minute to deter and shoot down enemy aircraft.
The Yamato had a capacity of around 20.000 lbs of AA per minute (divided into 24x 5in guns – 9924lbs, 162x 25mm guns – 10692lbs, 4x 13mm guns- 250lbs).
A US Iowa class battleship had 40.000 lbs per minute (divided into 20x 5in/38 guns - 17,600lbs, 80x 40mm Bofors – 19,056lbs, 49x 20mm Orelikon - 3983.7lbs).
Even a US Baltimore class cruiser had over 20.000 lbs per minute towards the end of the war.
As you can see, the Yamato had far more AA guns than an Iowa, but various issues (slower rate of fire, smaller magazines, etc) had a huge impact.
- 4