Will ship classes be properly represented

[jcd000]

My view on this is that you need Battleships to counter Battleships.
Carriers can do it, but not always and the 'not always' part can cost you a lot.
Carriers cannot hold ground either, so if you need *this* patch of sea, you better have a SAG stronger than the enemy's. This means BBs. (Or an overwhelming naval superiority of course, but that's irrelevant)

That said, even old slow Battleships can hold their own against other BBs, if they have aircraft backup (or in bad weather/night), so building newer ones is not a priority, depending on where and how you will be fighting. But *no* BB can hurt some navies quite a lot.

 

[bcoop1701]

I would say that carriers can hold "ground". They can hold more than any other ship because of the range of their strike craft if there is no opposing air forces to check them. Just like the Cactus Air Force owned the seas around Guadalcanal during the day, a carrier, during the day, owns the seas around it unless there are enemy aircraft to challenge them.

The Japanese at Midway held an overwhelming surface fleet advantage (5 BB's vs. none, 7 if you include the 2 with the Midway invasion force) once the Main Force met up with the remains of First Carrier Striking Force following the first day of battle but instead of attacking, they retreated from a force where they believed they may have sunk as many as two aircraft carriers because they knew that they couldn't close the range and were instead at the American fleet's remaining carriers' mercy because aircraft outrange guns. TF 16 owned the seas around Midway and forced a vastly superior surface fleet to retreat once they had eliminated the threat from the Japanese carriers.

And what if the SAG attempts to close the distance and engage at night? Carrier skippers are well aware of the danger of a night engagement and always maneuver, as TF 16 did at Midway to prevent such an attack and still be able to resume the offensive during the day.

Battleships are relevant but you have to neutralize the enemy carriers first with your own or with land based air if you are on the defensive.

 

[Axe99]

As always, agree with everything BCoop says - my main point is on the emphasis added below, as you well explain in your post .

I would say that carriers can hold "ground". They can hold more than any other ship because of the range of their strike craft if there is no opposing air forces to check them. Just like the Cactus Air Force owned the seas around Guadalcanal during the day, a carrier, during the day, owns the seas around it unless there are enemy aircraft to challenge them.

If one side has air superiority, then air power becomes the decisive arm for the vast majority of engagements. It's only when the balance of air is even that other things come into play.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there weren't unlimited CVs available to either side, and a number of engagements (mostly smaller, but some as large as the Battle of the Java Sea) were purely surface vessel on surface vessel engagements. Had one of either sides brought a relatively modern BB to the battle of the Java Sea, the other side would have been at a significant disadvantage. If the CVs are all off countering the other CVs, then there's perhaps a chance for BBs to cause trouble on the strategic flanks.

 

[Denkt]

• UK lost 3 battleships in the war (by lost I mean it was not recovered), two to submarines and one to aircrafts, no losses after 1941.
• UK lost 5 fleet carriers, three to submarines, one to naval gunfire and one to aircrafts, no losses after 1942.
• USA lost 2 battleships (pearl harbour), if you discount pearl harbour USA took no battleship losses.
• USA lost 5 fleet carriers, three took aircrafts, one to a combination of aircrafts and submarines and one to submarines, no losses after 1942 although a light carrier was sunk in 1944.

From this I would say it is extremely hard to sink a well protected capital ship, these nations did use their fleet aggressively all the way to 1945 giving the enemy plenty of opportunity to sink them. They did take some losses early on but maybe changes in doctrines and technology was enough to have zero losses after 1942.

The axis did take alot worse captial ship losses but they could not afford the same level of protection the allies could give to their ships.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Here's my USA-Tech tree to discuss:View attachment 173185 View attachment 173186

Can you show us Britain, France, Germany and Italy also?

 

[Cpack]

 

[Cpack]

 

[Cpack]

 

[Cpack]

 

[Cpack]

And Reworked Japan

 

[Cpack]

And reworked USA

 

[Cpack]

Can you show us Britain, France, Germany and Italy also?

Done

 

[Secret Master]

From this I would say it is extremely hard to sink a well
protected capital ship

Normally I follow you, but I'm now confused.

Wouldn't any ship, sufficiently protected, be difficult to sink?

Let's consider the USS Constitution, the oldest warship still in commission today.

Old Ironsides is a 44 gun frigate that can make around 15 knots if she is really, really lucky. She displaces around 2200 tons, making her around the same size as the USS Farragut from WWII. She is not as well armed, though. She only has 20 32 lb. guns and 30 24lb. guns. Also, despite her nickname, she really doesn't have iron armor. She can withstand 32 lb. cannonballs from British guns (battle with HMS Cyane and Levant), but I am going to assume that 5 inch guns, torpedoes, or 500 lb bombs will cripple or kill her with a single hit. (She will probably strike her colors if she is not turned into matchsticks by naval gunfire hits.)

So, how could Nimitz protect USS Constitution from enemy attack? If she is anchored at Pearl Harbor, she can be protected by proper air cover, RADAR to detect incoming hostiles, and submarine nets/ ASW patrols around the naval base. Any hit will be catastrophic, but she's a small target. An airstrike would have to fly the gauntlet of land based fighter coverage, assuming the Japanese carriers can get into range undetected to launch the attack in the first place. Such an attack would be dangerous to any ships there, sailing ship or not. Submarines can try to sneak in and run a Scapa Flow style attack, but let's be honest. As bad as a torpedo attack is for Constitution, a successful submarine attack in Pearl Harbor itself would be just as dangerous for stronger ships, as the crew of the Royal Oak might remind us. And I suppose Yamato could try to get into naval gunfire range (could she even see Constitution with her optics at maximum range?), but she's be attacked with aircraft, naval gunfire from supporting ships (seriously, no one is letting Yamato get into range without firing a shot), and shore guns protecting the harbor will get into the action if Yamato strays too close.

What I'm getting at is that in order to attack an 18th Century frigate that Nimitz wants to protect, you'd end up launching an attack that could also sink Yamato, Essex class carriers, Arizona, or Taffy 3. Anything can be well protected, but that doesn't mean that the thing being protected is that useful. I love USS Constitution to death, but she has no business being a war zone in 1942. I can protect Yamato from attack, but that doesn't make her the most useful asset in the war.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

And Reworked Japan
View attachment 173830 View attachment 173831

If you started adding armored cruisers, I have a good or bad news for you: besides Asama, AC Yakumo, Azuma, Izumo, Iwate, and Kasuga were still in service in 1936, and none of them were lost before 1945, how are you going to deal with them?

BTW, you misspelt Hatsuharu.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Let's consider the USS Constitution, the oldest warship still in commission today.

That would be HMS Victory.

 

[Secret Master]

That would be HMS Victory.

Is she actually in commission? How does the National Historic Fleet work? (I honestly have no idea.)

 

[Axe99]

Great work @Cpack - very impressive . There's far too much for me to provide useful comment on (as I'm not commenting just from memory, I'm going through my sources and spreadsheets), but I'll provide some RN comments in case they help . As ever, they look great off the bat, these are just suggestions to tweak in case they help, and perfectly ignorable . Happy to provide comments on the others as well, maybe remind me at the rate of up to 1/day if they're useful .

- destroyers - as someone corrected me when I mentioned it in another thread many moons ago, the G,H and I are probably a better match for a base 1936 destroyer, as the Tribals were more along the lines of an anti-destroyer destroyer, with a particularly heavy gun but reduced TT armament.

- You don't need the 'fictitious' label on the Bay class (I'm guessing this is just a "I'm doing a hundred photoshops and forgot to remove the label" thing ).

- I'd probably have the Kent class for the 1927 CA (first of the County sub-classes, but the Counties did vary a bit, so having Kent as the base leaves room for variants for the other Counties). Other names are as good a 'previous RN name that could have been used for cruisers' as any .

- For the 1936 CL, how about Southampton instead of Town, to allow for differences between the sub-classes? Not a biggy though.

- Eagle's a tad too small to be 1927 CV, and as a CV she was actually commissioned before the Glorious, Courageous and Furious. How about the converted BCs in the 1927 slot, and then perhaps move Ranger to the 1927 CVL slot (while she had a large capacity, she didn't have near as much survivability as a full CV) and only have CVLs in 1922, with the Hermes as the model (Argus was a converted merchant ship, while Hermes was built ground-up as a CV (at the time, we'd call her a CVL now), I think the first vessel to be laid down (but not commissioned) as such.

- You can use the improved H class sub for the 1922 model SSC, if you're looking for one.

- The Oberon was the lead ship of the O class - maybe have her in the 1922 slot for fleet subs, and then the Parthian class (which built of the O vessels) in 1927?

- How about the Triton class for the 1936 fleet subs? Grampus didn't have as much range, and could be kept as a possible submarine-minelayer variant (if we ever get mines modded in sensibly).

'Tis all great work - the above are just in case they're helpful .

If you started adding armored cruisers, I have a good or bad news for you: besides Asama, AC Yakumo, Azuma, Izumo, Iwate, and Kasuga were still in service in 1936, and none of them were lost before 1945, how are you going to deal with them?

BTW, you misspelt Hatsuharu.

I'd be for adding ACs to the tech tree, although Japan's ACs were a pain in the rear (I'm putting together my Japanese data now, and only just went through them) - if you've got the time, would be interested on your thoughts on my thoughts as to how to treat them in-game:

- Asama, while still in commission in 1936, ran aground in 1935 so is no longer seaworthy and was pretty much a stationary training ship for the course of the game (so I was going to leave this out of the mod).

- Yakumo was one of the easiest, and was part of the active fleet all through the war, although had main armament removed and replaced by DP AA in early '45 (have in-game, perhaps have option to change to AA AC (!) by event, if not doable through gameplay).

- Azuma, in service at the start of the game, disarmed and a hulk from 1941 (I want to see what's possible mod-wise, but perhaps some kind of event where a player can choose to either spend some resources refitting her, or hulks her, in 1941 - would far prefer dynamic gameplay that covered this off if possible though - deffo in OOB at start of game).

- Izumo, not unlike Yakumo, although formally a training ship from 1943, and as per Yakumo had main armament removed and replaced by 5" DP AA in early '45 (so treat as per Yakumo in mod)

- Iwate, pretty much Yakumo/Izumo in terms of service (and treat as per them).

- Kasuga, training vessel from start of the game until 1942, when disarmed and hulked (as training ships aren't really in the game - although I have devious thoughts to perhaps mod some kind of naval training system in down the track - and she never got reclassified as a first-class cruiser during the period, I was going to leave her out of the game).

Edit 2: And Tokiwa, still around as a Minelayer, although without her main armament since prior to 1936.

Edit: On the most important issue in this thread (oldest commissioned warship ), I didn't think the Victory was commissioned, so I'd go with the Constitution - although I think it's a slightly semantic argument .

 

[BrotherSurplice]

@Cpack , for the British tech tree you could add the N3-Class as the 1936 heavy battleship and the G3-Class as the 1940 battlecruiser.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

I'd be for adding ACs to the tech tree, although Japan's ACs were a pain in the rear (I'm putting together my Japanese data now, and only just went through them) - if you've got the time, would be interested on your thoughts on my thoughts as to how to treat them in-game:

- Asama, while still in commission in 1936, ran aground in 1935 so is no longer seaworthy and was pretty much a stationary training ship for the course of the game (so I was going to leave this out of the mod).

- Yakumo was one of the easiest, and was part of the active fleet all through the war, although had main armament removed and replaced by DP AA in early '45 (have in-game, perhaps have option to change to AA AC (!) by event, if not doable through gameplay).

- Azuma, in service at the start of the game, disarmed and a hulk from 1941 (I want to see what's possible mod-wise, but perhaps some kind of event where a player can choose to either spend some resources refitting her, or hulks her, in 1941 - would far prefer dynamic gameplay that covered this off if possible though - deffo in OOB at start of game).

- Izumo, not unlike Yakumo, although formally a training ship from 1943, and as per Yakumo had main armament removed and replaced by 5" DP AA in early '45 (so treat as per Yakumo in mod)

- Iwate, pretty much Yakumo/Izumo in terms of service (and treat as per them).

- Kasuga, training vessel from start of the game until 1942, when disarmed and hulked (as training ships aren't really in the game - although I have devious thoughts to perhaps mod some kind of naval training system in down the track - and she never got reclassified as a first-class cruiser during the period, I was going to leave her out of the game).

Edit: On the most important issue in this thread (oldest commissioned warship ), I didn't think the Victory was commissioned, so I'd go with the Constitution - although I think it's a slightly semantic argument .

Oops, I meant Tokiwa of Asama-class, not Asama. Tokiwa had been relegated to minelaying roles and sometimes escort duties before the war, and survived until 1945.

I think they can be sort of super escort. Slowness doesn't mean much for escorts, but being decently armored and having a big deck after removinng the old guns to mount all sort of things can be a boon. On the other hand, better engines would enable them to be ok-ish raiders.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Is she actually in commission? How does the National Historic Fleet work? (I honestly have no idea.)

Yes, the Victory has never been out of commission as far as I know. She has long-held the record for the oldest commissioned battleship, and has never been struck off the Royal Navy's register.