Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Whomst'd've

Will aircraft carriers be added to the game?

Should aircraft carriers be added?  

126 members have voted

  1. 1. Should aircraft carriers be added?

    • Yeah
      91
    • Nah
      36


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, SiWi said:

I find it strange to say that while they totally fall into the era the games uses, then to turn around and say "and this is the reason why they shouldn't play a role". Mind you that sea plan carries are overlook here since they slightly predate regular CV's

Especially in a game which is less about historical ships but what if.

I'm pretty sure you can build a lot more ships with 16 inch, 17 inch or 18 inch and perhaps when finish with more then 18 inch guns, the historical accurate.

 

And the famous mechanic argument overlooks that catapult airplanes were a big thing for ship designs during the later half of the period of the game.

Should that also be ignored?

 

 

Upon reflection after first posting in this thread,  followed up by reading up further on the subject at hand, I concluded that I nolonger agreed with my original post and further that my original post isn'tas accurate as I'd hope it to be. My apologies for changing my mind after doing more research and thinking, I'll try not to next time.

As for your point about 16, 17, and 18in guns, and what if ships and ect, according to the imformation posted on the games website about planned features the devs clearly state, that not only is the game going to run from "The imperialism era to the interwar period" but will involve a large number of things including but not limited to "Treaties that limit naval construction programs" which begs the question: how many ships toting 18in guns will you be permitted to build and of what tonnage?

 

As for your comments about catapult aircraft and the famous mechanics arguements.. you have no arguement there. Yes, what about the devs having to program new mechanics to facilitate aircraft, the launch of aircraft,  the recovery of aircraft, crane's used to recover aircraft, antiaircraft artillery and etc? The mechanics arguement doesn't overlook catapult aircraft, those still fall under the same programing requirements of any other aircraft implementation in the game. So unless a dev posts information saying else wise, which if I've missed I'll then gladly acquiesce upon seeing,  yes it should be ignored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fishyfish said:

Upon reflection after first posting in this thread,  followed up by reading up further on the subject at hand, I concluded that I nolonger agreed with my original post and further that my original post isn'tas accurate as I'd hope it to be. My apologies for changing my mind after doing more research and thinking, I'll try not to next time.

As for your point about 16, 17, and 18in guns, and what if ships and ect, according to the imformation posted on the games website about planned features the devs clearly state, that not only is the game going to run from "The imperialism era to the interwar period" but will involve a large number of things including but not limited to "Treaties that limit naval construction programs" which begs the question: how many ships toting 18in guns will you be permitted to build and of what tonnage?

 

As for your comments about catapult aircraft and the famous mechanics arguements.. you have no arguement there. Yes, what about the devs having to program new mechanics to facilitate aircraft, the launch of aircraft,  the recovery of aircraft, crane's used to recover aircraft, antiaircraft artillery and etc? The mechanics arguement doesn't overlook catapult aircraft, those still fall under the same programing requirements of any other aircraft implementation in the game. So unless a dev posts information saying else wise, which if I've missed I'll then gladly acquiesce upon seeing,  yes it should be ignored. 

I don't remember attack someone for changing his mind so no idea what you are trying to tell me with the first paragraph. 

The joke with this is that those treaties where big after WW1 which could end very differently depending on your performance. Or doesn't happen anyway close as it was in real life.

But even before the treaties come to be, how many 18 inches are already build ingame? While you don't seem to have full control over technologies, you probably will have some things earlier then the real navies. I wouldn't be surprise that winning the war you could have a bit of say what the treaty, when it comes, says.

 

 Except that the logic to leave the CV's out to save to make those mechanics become even worse.

Now not just a major shiptype should get ignored, but also a major consideration for the ship design itself.

How many designs of the 20s and 30s had catapult aircraft for spotting? Missing those is robbing yourself of a alternative for radar and a potential tool for your fleet. 

According to that logic you shouldn't ask for anything that isn't already in the game because it could be "too much work". And while CVs will be work (thou I think people are over dramatic over the difficulty to program airplanes, victory at sea had them... hell pacific storm had them ad that game was far worse finish then this alpha), they would enrich the game enormous, partly because they do require new mechanics. 

So would catapult planes.

If the game would have been release without armor penetration mechanic would you also have argued that the game shouldn't have it because it would be too difficult to program?

I doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SiWi said:

I don't remember attack someone for changing his mind so no idea what you are trying to tell me with the first paragraph. 

The joke with this is that those treaties where big after WW1 which could end very differently depending on your performance. Or doesn't happen anyway close as it was in real life.

But even before the treaties come to be, how many 18 inches are already build ingame? While you don't seem to have full control over technologies, you probably will have some things earlier then the real navies. I wouldn't be surprise that winning the war you could have a bit of say what the treaty, when it comes, says.

 

 Except that the logic to leave the CV's out to save to make those mechanics become even worse.

Now not just a major shiptype should get ignored, but also a major consideration for the ship design itself.

How many designs of the 20s and 30s had catapult aircraft for spotting? Missing those is robbing yourself of a alternative for radar and a potential tool for your fleet. 

According to that logic you shouldn't ask for anything that isn't already in the game because it could be "too much work". And while CVs will be work (thou I think people are over dramatic over the difficulty to program airplanes, victory at sea had them... hell pacific storm had them ad that game was far worse finish then this alpha), they would enrich the game enormous, partly because they do require new mechanics. 

So would catapult planes.

If the game would have been release without armor penetration mechanic would you also have argued that the game shouldn't have it because it would be too difficult to program?

I doubt that.

 

I can't really argue for or against the proliferation of 18 inch guns in the game, I agree that treaties will more than likely differ or depend on your performance during the various wars that bring them on. I have discovered though that between being first designed in 1915 by great Britain to 1940, eleven18 inch guns were built. Three of them were British BL 18 inch Mk I guns, eight were American 18"/48 caliber Mark 1 guns. After 1940 though the Japanese built 27ish. But I still believe that 1940 is outside this games scope. I digress, this is a thread on aircraft carriers.

With that being said, exactly 13 battleships were built between Great Britain, The USA, France, Germany and Japan between 1920 and 1939. Mind you these are battleships built during this era, not total battleships in service during this era. Of them five were American, one of which the USS California had a catapult spotter plane. The Nelson received 1 craned off sea plane, and the Rodney 2 after 1934. Both Japanese battleships Nagato and Mutsu received floatplanes in 1925, experimental catapults in 1933 and reliable catapults in 1935. Both French battleships Dunkirk and Strasbourg were completed with 2 float planes each in 1937 and 1938 respectively. And Both German battleships Sharnhorst and Genisenau were completed with aircraft in 1938 and 1939 respectively.

I admit that I have no counts or numbers on pre-treaty battleships that were modernized and given any sort of float plane or catapult plane or cruiser classes. With the exception of the Hood, which was finished with a float plane that was later deleted. I did though find that catapult aircraft were first implemented in 1924 on capital ships in the form of a gunpowder propelled catapult but I have no data on how many excluding the warships I've listed above. And of those listed above four really shouldn't be considered given how late they came into being.

 

Again, to me these numbers just don't have enough weight behind them to realistically see them implemented. Also in regards to your comment on armor penetration mechanics - nice strawman. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying 5 nations build the same amount of battleships as 3 major nations built of carriers during the same time period. Well that tells me they should then be added in. The navies knew they would play a role in the coming future just not how they would.

Actually less time for carriers forgot you gave battleshis till 1940

Edited by DarkTerren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

That still doesn't prove subs were king of the seas no matter how you spin it.

I never claimed they were. There is a huge difference between "king of the seas" and "irrelevant" though.

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Like i said its mainly down to skill and good intelligence (sometimes) on the subs part, huge amounts of luck. Underestimation on the enemy's part plus lack of ASW and imcompetance, bad luck, poor intelligence etc.

I've already covered this and I'd be saying the same thing again, but I just don't see any basis for your claim that the enemy had to have "lack of ASW and incompetance" to get torpedoed. A quick scan of carriers and battleships torpedoed by subs in WW2 shows that almost all were torpedoed while being screened usually by at least 4 escorts. That's not what I would call a "lack of ASW and incompetance". But I do agree that "luck" played a part as sub's typically slower speeds than most large warships meant reduced intercept opportunities. But given enough time and enough boats intercepts would and did inevitably occur.

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

The real kings are CV's.

In an individual CV-vs-SS comparison, pre-Type XXI, I definitely agree that the CV was king. But on the basis of cost effectiveness in the sea denial role and how many subs you could get for the price of a single carrier, a case could probably be made that the subs would be a more effective use of resources if your sole objective was sea denial.

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Subs are good, but like i said before sub's would fare extremely poorly in combat where both combatants know the positions of each other and have the ability to sink each other (most ships did).

They were just less likely to attack or be attacked. Generally speaking if they pre-positioned into spot where they could get a shot off at the enemy they could do damage and if not, the surface battle would occur without them, which is what usually happened. I don't consider a smaller probably of engagement to be the same as "faring extremely poorly".

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Hense why subs never fought alongside main fleets but usually veer'ed of somewhere else to get a better angle and/or were in a position days/hours before to launch an ambush.

Depending on what you mean by alongside that isn't strictly true. For example the infamous British K class was very much designed to and briefly operated "alongside" the Grand Fleet. It just wasn't very good (though to be fair, it never really got much of a chance to prove itself). Normally it wasn't done because it was more effective to send the subs ahead and hope they got into a good position, or just have the subs operate independent of the fleet in the first place.

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah subs sunk a lot but far more were sunk by guns, depth charges and aircraft. USS wahoo being an example.

Really really rough numbers but there was about 25 million tons of ships sunk by subs in WW2, vs about 1 million tons of subs sunk. So a "kill" ratio of about 25:1 in tonnage sunk by subs vs tonnage of subs lost. And it of course includes all the U-Boats and I-Boats sunk by the allies with their colossal resource advantage (and therefore isn't really representative of what a more "balanced" alt-history fight would have looked like; for example I imagine if the Kriegsmarine had resources similar to what the allies did, that number on the left would certainly be far higher still).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am divided about adding carrier to this game. On one side it would ruin the battleship if we were to follow reality. On the other side, in WW2 secondary battery doubled as anti aircraft role, in fact it had become its main role. Without plane I do not think secondary would have remained valid. Not to Yamato extent at least.

A compromise would be to have relatively weak planes. It would justify secondary guns and the esthetics of ww2 ships. they would be useful to spot and inflict weak fire and torpedo damage. But while remaining within the range of the map. A bit like Battle Station Midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

I am divided about adding carrier to this game. On one side it would ruin the battleship if we were to follow reality. On the other side, in WW2 secondary battery doubled as anti aircraft role, in fact it had become its main role. Without plane I do not think secondary would have remained valid. Not to Yamato extent at least.

A compromise would be to have relatively weak planes. It would justify secondary guns and the esthetics of ww2 ships. they would be useful to spot and inflict weak fire and torpedo damage. But while remaining within the range of the map. A bit like Battle Station Midway.

I see really any reason for this CV will make BBs obsolete.
IJN had exceptionally bad AA 25mm guns with small ammo capacity, no radar tracking and Type 3 ammo was considered as fireworks (white phosphor does not burn metal planes).

USN BBs and cruisers had 40mm Bofors with massively better fire rate with better ammo capacity, radar assisted AAA guns for blockading and ton of small machine guns for proximity coverage.
Kamikaze and air attacks towards USN ships became suicidal and futile due to tech advantage of USN (no pun intended).

If we only look at the ships that got sank due to carriers. They all have in common the fact that they were never expected to defend them self against plane attacks. (Repulsor, pre dreads and old cruisers).
After the attack on Pearl harbor carriers were reevaluated and considered to have potential in offensive role.
USN also adopted this approach after the incident. Before the attack carriers were never considered to be used mainly offensively. Main purpose was to spot the enemy and allow the fleet to have the upper hand in ship engagement. Reason why sword fish and sea gladiators were a thing in Royal navy carriers before pearl. They were more than enough to provide intel and help scuttling enemy ships.

Next argument would be attack on Bismarck and how CVs are not OP.
Well the carrier never sank Bismark only harassed it. If the carrier wanted to sink Bismarck it should have sent more planes and attack more often. This would have made the whole task force chasing Bismarck pointless.

In game this sudden change in carrier doctrine should occur 1941 December and continue from that point onward. How to counter this. Retrofit AA mounts to your ships and improve fire control and radars as well build your own carriers to escort your own fleets. Simple really no need for this massive CV OP plox remove.

I do hope this short sited view on the carriers would simply stop as they are not so OP as thought and some what easy to counter. Hollywood might have tough that one CV dominates the world (might lord ring :D) but in reality CVs were more of humble spotter and skirmisher before Yamamoto thought outside the box.
Even then the USN was more than capable show middle finger the planes as well were the Royal navy after some technological upgrades and retrofitting.
IJN DD losses due to carriers??
IJN DD losses were due to silly planning and had nothing to do with CVs being OP. 4 DDs with 25mm AA and mere 15 rounds per magazine.... need more to say? (these AA guns were very popular in IJN sadly)
Crying CV op coz no effort putted to AA defense is like telling enemy to make stuff that even a infant can break bare handed 😐

Many of the ships machine guns were more than effective against torpedo boats (example PT-109)
And these were considered more than a threat for a battleship on mass than carrier (before the pearl incident). After all machine gun is more than capable to hit small target than 155mm casement gun... needles to say it but to use 13" gun on a PT is a overkill and good luck hitting something so small.

Shortly the whole wall
1. CV are not OP due to their role before December 1941
2. Retrofit AA to your old ship designs (historically accurate action)
3. Build own CVs and have the combat air patrol cover your fleet (historically accurate action)
4. Focus on air radars and fire control to show middle finger to planes (USN Historically accurate action)
5. BBs simply wont become obsolete only low tech ones and even then it will not be long before ship AA becomes sufficient (Historically accurate sadly IJN didn't get the memo)

6. CV OP plox remove cry is silly and unreasonable not to mention immersion breaking and historically inaccurate to not have carriers.

 

Source for AA:
Type 96 25mm AA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96_25_mm_AT/AA_Gun
Bofors 40 mm AA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun
Oerlikon 20mm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerlikon_20_mm_cannon
Type 3 ammo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)
List of various AAs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_anti-aircraft_guns
Stource for 
Carriers roles and development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_aircraft_carrier
Carrier effectiveness in combat
https://ethw.org/Aircraft_Carriers_in_World_War_II
Planes too weak please buff
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be fitting if CVs ended the battleship as so history has written!

For the very end of the campaign, kinda like a storyline ending (or planned for a expansion pack). I abstain too since the game concept is dreadnought but it's not unreasonable for alittle foresight in the here and now, so neither yay or nay. 

PS, wouldn't want to be like WOWS, since birth they said no subs, now they've just spent the last 6-12 months re-modeling all there destroyers for depth charges. 🤣🤣🤣

Edited by Skeksis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

 

I can't really argue for or against the proliferation of 18 inch guns in the game, I agree that treaties will more than likely differ or depend on your performance during the various wars that bring them on. I have discovered though that between being first designed in 1915 by great Britain to 1940, eleven18 inch guns were built. Three of them were British BL 18 inch Mk I guns, eight were American 18"/48 caliber Mark 1 guns. After 1940 though the Japanese built 27ish. But I still believe that 1940 is outside this games scope. I digress, this is a thread on aircraft carriers.

With that being said, exactly 13 battleships were built between Great Britain, The USA, France, Germany and Japan between 1920 and 1939. Mind you these are battleships built during this era, not total battleships in service during this era. Of them five were American, one of which the USS California had a catapult spotter plane. The Nelson received 1 craned off sea plane, and the Rodney 2 after 1934. Both Japanese battleships Nagato and Mutsu received floatplanes in 1925, experimental catapults in 1933 and reliable catapults in 1935. Both French battleships Dunkirk and Strasbourg were completed with 2 float planes each in 1937 and 1938 respectively. And Both German battleships Sharnhorst and Genisenau were completed with aircraft in 1938 and 1939 respectively.

I admit that I have no counts or numbers on pre-treaty battleships that were modernized and given any sort of float plane or catapult plane or cruiser classes. With the exception of the Hood, which was finished with a float plane that was later deleted. I did though find that catapult aircraft were first implemented in 1924 on capital ships in the form of a gunpowder propelled catapult but I have no data on how many excluding the warships I've listed above. And of those listed above four really shouldn't be considered given how late they came into being.

 

Again, to me these numbers just don't have enough weight behind them to realistically see them implemented. Also in regards to your comment on armor penetration mechanics - nice strawman. ts.

as DarkTerren has pointed out, your argument that they shouldn't be included because only 13 were build just became more hilarious with also you pointing out that there weren't many BB's build either. So I guess that after 1918 you can't build more then 3 BB as germany in game, according to your logic.

 

Its also nice to know that you competently ignore cruisers with planes. And of course you also miss the point of the game: having the freedom to do things differently then history.

Aka building ships with catapult more earlier or maybe have even the catapult "carrier" concept that sweden used (Gotland build 1934). 

And given that it falls into the timescope of the game, more then radar which first test were made 1935 and that was a far cry from the radar shown in "modern battleship" which seems to be already a mid war one, to argue that it doesn't belong into the game is silly.

Again the first CV were made IN WW1. That is basically in the middle of the timeframe of the game. IF the game would end 1920, you maybe would have a leg to stand on it (thou HMS Argus still entered service 1918). But it doesn't. It includes at least the 30s and that is well in of the CV's becoming a stable in the major fleets. All the while more would have been build if there was a major naval conflict between the powers.

 

Funny you call the armor penetration argument a strawmen, given that it is the exact same reasoning you use: it is not in game and too complicated to add. Only difference is that you would care for armor penetration, hence the point.

All the while you argue that "because there weren't enough they shouldn't be in", despite the fact that you can quite happily build ships with 18 inc guns from which how many existed?

3? And basically 1 in the timeframe of the game? Mind you it was single barrel.

Yamato was finished August 1940 (as define by launching not by entering service that it only did in 1941) so the argument that "modern battleship" is not a 40's ships, the radar lone gives that away (Yamato got hers after 1941), is a bit ridiculous. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrier doctrine till 1941 was harasser and scout.
in 1942 carriers became offensive tool.
Carriers did not see the end of battleships (Missouri served among jet carriers)
What carriers did teach is don't build ships that are slow and cumbersome.
Missouri's AA was more than adequate to fend of jet planes after retro fit.... so much for the end of battleships.
What carriers are is end of silly gigantus biggus ship builds and to more smart build with AA taken in.
Unlike Japanese ships which had so horrendous AA that you would have not fended of a biplane with broken engine before it strafes the deck clean (which actually did happen in china coz DD AA was just 12x 25mm AA guns)

Offensive carriers (1942 doctrine) literally is the end of silly builds (what they closed the silly walks ministry!?!?) Quite a few ships had to have some of the secondary batteries removed for proper AA configurations and dual purpose secondaries became precious as diamonds.
 
There is absolutely no point in the carrier phobia. (i understand that WoWs has traumatized you but this is not WoWs. Trust these guys i am quite positive that carries won't mess up anything else than your ministry of silly walks. Now have any one seen my 24x 18" ship!?! )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

Carrier doctrine till 1941 was harasser and scout.
in 1942 carriers became offensive tool.
Carriers did not see the end of battleships (Missouri served among jet carriers)
What carriers did teach is don't build ships that are slow and cumbersome.
Missouri's AA was more than adequate to fend of jet planes after retro fit.... so much for the end of battleships.
What carriers are is end of silly gigantus biggus ship builds and to more smart build with AA taken in.
Unlike Japanese ships which had so horrendous AA that you would have not fended of a biplane with broken engine before it strafes the deck clean (which actually did happen in china coz DD AA was just 12x 25mm AA guns)

Offensive carriers (1942 doctrine) literally is the end of silly builds (what they closed the silly walks ministry!?!?) Quite a few ships had to have some of the secondary batteries removed for proper AA configurations and dual purpose secondaries became precious as diamonds.
 
There is absolutely no point in the carrier phobia. (i understand that WoWs has traumatized you but this is not WoWs. Trust these guys i am quite positive that carries won't mess up anything else than your ministry of silly walks. Now have any one seen my 24x 18" ship!?! )

Almost thought you wrote something else at the end lmao.

But yeah AA just needed to Git gud, it was potatoing hard on ijn ships.

Pretty sure if you made a 45,000 ton BB with modern tech, equipment and guns the thing would sound enough for warfare.

Dunno much cheaper or expensive it would be compared to a similar sized aircraft carrier (modern) or somewhat bigger than it.

Plus not too mention there hasn't been a single naval battle between two or more major powers since ww2 so, the data from that era is irrelevant at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the bigger potentials for fun with this game is being able to do "What If" scenarios.  

The US and Japan both built aircraft carriers with 8 inch guns. What if Lexington met Akagi in a ship-to-ship battle?

What if any of the purpose built Battle-Carriers were actually built? 

The ability to have Aircraft Carriers as a player controlled option would add a lot of fun.  Players should have the option to include them or not.

I personally would like to see Airships included, and Aerial Aircraft Carriers as well. 

It is already a lot of fun to set up things like: 

Bismarck versus Maryland

Bismarck versus Dunquirk or Jean Bart

Nelson versus Nagato

It would also be an interesting battle to see half a dozen torpedo boats take on a 1930s era Aircraft Carriers.  

The both-and option is usually better than either-or.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we now have an idea the game will go past 1940 with the newst missions

 

Your main adversary is a huge battleship with technologies of the 1940s

 

i would say carriers have to be in one way or another now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carriers are all the rage the the Pacific, but most of European waters are within the range of land based aviation, particularly the Baltic where a war with Russia would be fought. While dive bombers were a 1930's thing, the torpedo bombers were available in World War 1. Planes were crappy back then, but there were no effective AA or fleet based interceptors to stop the torpedo bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 1:57 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

I see really any reason for this CV will make BBs obsolete.

Because in reality they did. Why build a battleship when you can build a carrier for equivalent (or usually actually lesser) cost that has ten or more times greater strike and scout range?

 

On 10/25/2019 at 1:57 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

Kamikaze and air attacks towards USN ships became suicidal and futile due to tech advantage of USN (no pun intended).

 

On 10/25/2019 at 1:57 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

Even then the USN was more than capable show middle finger the planes as well were the Royal navy after some technological upgrades and retrofitting.

Kamikazes suicidal? I admit I got a chuckle out of that one :) But as to USN showing a middle finger, well, a quick scan of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_vessels_struck_by_Japanese_special_attack_weapons

shows 400+ hits, including fifteen hits on US battleships, almost all in 1945. 42 hits on carriers too (unsurprising, they were the primary targets), including 3 CVEs sunk. Now imagine a Japan with equivalent resources to the USN and RN and how much more damage they could have done.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 1:57 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

If we only look at the ships that got sank due to carriers. They all have in common the fact that they were never expected to defend them self against plane attacks. (Repulsor, pre dreads and old cruisers).
After the attack on Pearl harbor carriers were reevaluated and considered to have potential in offensive role.
USN also adopted this approach after the incident. Before the attack carriers were never considered to be used mainly offensively. Main purpose was to spot the enemy and allow the fleet to have the upper hand in ship engagement.

Are you really trying to claim that every warship built before Dec 7, 1941 was never expected to defend itself against air attacks? Despite aircraft and carriers having existed for decades before that?! The anti-aircraft guns fitted on some of them beginning in the 1910s were just for decoration?

The utility of carriers in the offense was well understood by the USN by the early thirties, even if the formal offensive force was still the battleships. See the USN "Fleet Problem" exercises of the early 30s (which included simulated dive bomber attacks and damage on battleships) and the subsequent construction of CV-4 to CV-8. Further the carriers were equipped with torpedo and dive bombers in the 20s and 30s, hardly a sign of a force whose sole intended purpose is to spot the enemy.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 1:57 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

Reason why sword fish and sea gladiators were a thing in Royal navy carriers before pearl. They were more than enough to provide intel and help scuttling enemy ships.

You might want to look up the primary role of the Swordfish... And I suppose the Taranto attack didn't happen either?

 

On 10/25/2019 at 1:57 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

Next argument would be attack on Bismarck and how CVs are not OP.
Well the carrier never sank Bismark only harassed it. If the carrier wanted to sink Bismarck it should have sent more planes and attack more often. This would have made the whole task force chasing Bismarck pointless.

Or it could be said that a partially-equipped carrier with a small flight group of obsolescent aircraft managed to damage the latest and greatest German battleship with no damage to itself. Seems like a win for the carrier to me.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 1:57 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

In game this sudden change in carrier doctrine should occur 1941 December and continue from that point onward. How to counter this. Retrofit AA mounts to your ships and improve fire control and radars as well build your own carriers to escort your own fleets. Simple really no need for this massive CV OP plox remove.

I hope the game doesn't have some sort of pre-scripted event that always occurs in December 1941... It would be nice if technology research was dynamic to a degree (as in dependent on foreign technologies and/or events in battle) but that's asking for a lot.

Anyway at that point why build carriers to escort your fleets when instead you can build them to become the centrepiece of your fleets (existing battleships notwithstanding)? 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 1:57 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

I do hope this short sited view on the carriers would simply stop as they are not so OP as thought and some what easy to counter. Hollywood might have tough that one CV dominates the world (might lord ring :D) but in reality CVs were more of humble spotter and skirmisher before Yamamoto thought outside the box.

It's amusing that you say others have a short sited view and then claim Yamamoto was the first one to think outside the box. See Grand Joint Exercise No. 4 where USN carriers launched a highly successful simulated surprise attack on Pearl Harbour in 1932, nine years before Yamamoto's alleged "outside the box" thinking!

 

On 10/25/2019 at 1:57 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

Shortly the whole wall
1. CV are not OP due to their role before December 1941
2. Retrofit AA to your old ship designs (historically accurate action)
3. Build own CVs and have the combat air patrol cover your fleet (historically accurate action)
4. Focus on air radars and fire control to show middle finger to planes (USN Historically accurate action)
5. BBs simply wont become obsolete only low tech ones and even then it will not be long before ship AA becomes sufficient (Historically accurate sadly IJN didn't get the memo)

6. CV OP plox remove cry is silly and unreasonable not to mention immersion breaking and historically inaccurate to not have carriers.

The cancellations of the Montanas, the last two Iowas, the Lions, the H-39s, the Shinano and Ise conversions, plus the "design a battleship that might actually survive" studies like the H-42+ is pretty much all one really needs to know about battleship obsolescence in the 40s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't fret so much on carriers, first we need to be sure we get planes or not. It could be land based aviation for all we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cancellation of the H-39's or H-42 as well as the Shinano or Ise conversions, had little to do with BB's being obsolete but Germany having no hope to win the naval war or the resources to build and maintain them and japan had lost its carriers, not its BB's.

Also the "end of BB's" had not just to do with CV's but also with missiles, jet planes and the fact that you couldn't armored good enough for the new weapons coming.

 

but even if we assume that CV's "end" (right now 18 inch guns with radar 2 "ends" DD's) and?

They will be relative late game tech and need a while to become good. So going after them is not a obvious for all countries in all circumstances. it will be something of a gable, as are many "high tech" units/technologies.

So yeah maybe a game about BB's should not show they rise but also show what was the downfall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

(...)

The cancellations of the Montanas, the last two Iowas, the Lions, the H-39s, the Shinano and Ise conversions, plus the "design a battleship that might actually survive" studies like the H-42+ is pretty much all one really needs to know about battleship obsolescence in the 40s.

Considering that these were very expensive projects, there were not that many major battles between introduction of Battleships and late 1940's, smaller fleets were proven to have better area coverage and were more cost effective, rocket technology development, More effective Guns and AA development... Yeah CV's were the only reason why Battleships became obsolete. LOL 

I'd say aviation played the same role in ending BB's as anything above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SiWi said:

The cancellation of the H-39's or H-42 as well as the Shinano or Ise conversions, had little to do with BB's being obsolete but Germany having no hope to win the naval war or the resources to build and maintain them and japan had lost its carriers, not its BB's.

Two H-39s were laid down and the cost of each of them was estimated at 240.85 Reichsmarks, or roughly equivalent to 50 Type VIICs. Seeing as how over 700 Type VIIs were built and some money had already been spent on design and construction of the H-39s when they were cancelled, I don't agree with the notion that Germany did not have the resources. They could have completed them if they had wanted to, in exchange for a reduction in u-boat numbers.

http://www.kbismarck.com/warship-construction-cost.html

H-42, 43, 44 were a paper designs as I mentioned only as an example of what was being planned in an attempt to design a sufficiently armoured battleship. Obviously these had no realistic chance of being constructed by Germany or really any country when they could build much more cost effective ships.

On Shinano and Ise/Hyuga, yes Japan hadn't lost BBs at the time the conversion was decided upon, but by the very nature of the conversions it was effectively going to lose them, just to gain some "hybrids" and a limited capability (for its size) carrier. Even the Fusos were planned to be converted at one point. That the IJN was going to reduce their battleship force in exchange for these questionable vessels says a lot about the IJN's view of battleship obsolescence circa 1942.

 

11 hours ago, SiWi said:

Also the "end of BB's" had not just to do with CV's but also with missiles, jet planes and the fact that you couldn't armored good enough for the new weapons coming.

The last BBs were laid down in 1941 so it's safe to say that by 1942 it was well understood by the major navies that the battleship was obsolete. In 1942 there were no operational missiles or jets but there were carriers, and plenty more of them being laid down.

Edited by Commodore Sandurz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES AND NO...

Depends on Era, if it WW1 and pre-dreadnought, definitely NO.

If it Morden Warship Era/WW2 Era, but also with submarines. THAN YES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

Two H-39s were laid down and the cost of each of them was estimated at 240.85 Reichsmarks, or roughly equivalent to 50 Type VIICs. Seeing as how over 700 Type VIIs were built and some money had already been spent on design and construction of the H-39s when they were cancelled, I don't agree with the notion that Germany did not have the resources. They could have completed them if they had wanted to, in exchange for a reduction in u-boat numbers.

http://www.kbismarck.com/warship-construction-cost.html

H-42, 43, 44 were a paper designs as I mentioned only as an example of what was being planned in an attempt to design a sufficiently armoured battleship. Obviously these had no realistic chance of being constructed by Germany or really any country when they could build much more cost effective ships.

On Shinano and Ise/Hyuga, yes Japan hadn't lost BBs at the time the conversion was decided upon, but by the very nature of the conversions it was effectively going to lose them, just to gain some "hybrids" and a limited capability (for its size) carrier. Even the Fusos were planned to be converted at one point. That the IJN was going to reduce their battleship force in exchange for these questionable vessels says a lot about the IJN's view of battleship obsolescence circa 1942.

 

The last BBs were laid down in 1941 so it's safe to say that by 1942 it was well understood by the major navies that the battleship was obsolete. In 1942 there were no operational missiles or jets but there were carriers, and plenty more of them being laid down.

First of all the you are comeptllly missing the point of the german situation of germany during WW2.

After Bismarck was lost it was pretty obvious that germany had NO HOPE to defeat the UK with surface ships. It fact Hitler in one point order the surface fleet to be scrapped.

2 more BB would change nothing on germanys chances and indeed cost alot of resources, reichsmark the least important. Tehy would have simply joined the rest of the fleet in the docks being bomb day in day out.

 

Also you seem to compelty forget that germany was in a land war against the UDSSR were TANKS were more useful then BB or sub. Also you seem comeptlyl to ignore that Germany also didn't build any CV's. And for the record 1-2 CV's would have not helped germanys situation.

 

So why not list the cancellation of the Hindenburg how CV's were obsolete? ;)

 

And the pacific is a very unique environment for naval warfare the one were CV's are the most useful.

So effectively getting your CV force wiped out in one battle mean you do need to have fast replacements. Even it if has to be conversions.

How many BB's did the british convert to CV's after Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sunk Glorious?

See this is the problem with your argumentation you try to compeltly blend out the overall situation of the navies making the decisions.

Even if that means that you ignore the land war between 3rd Reich and UDSSR....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there is no airpower in game (whether land based or carrier borne) then AA ceases to be an issue which will massively skew "gamer" ship design.

Who needs AA either on board or via escort ships when there are no planes? 

Planes are a must and rubbish WWI type planes will be pretty funny and then become much more a threat as we enter into the 40s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If carriers are a thing then the entire game changes. From a design suited for engagements between 0 to 50km we go to 50-500 km. This is a different scale and a different game. 

The carriers were the very things that rendered the dreadnoughts useless, this would dramatically change the game, rendering it unrecognizable. It would simply become ultimate admiral "carriers". 

 

You are asking for a different game guys, stay on target. 

 

I would agree tah this carrier thing would make a great expansion pack/mod/second opus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, sarrumac said:

If carriers are a thing then the entire game changes. From a design suited for engagements between 0 to 50km we go to 50-500 km. This is a different scale and a different game. 

The carriers were the very things that rendered the dreadnoughts useless, this would dramatically change the game, rendering it unrecognizable. It would simply become ultimate admiral "carriers". 

 

You are asking for a different game guys, stay on target. 

 

I would agree tah this carrier thing would make a great expansion pack/mod/second opus.

 

Carriers would be a new invention "end game" if you imagine this game as say 1850 through 1945 carriers would only be around in their crudest form from the 1920s. So that would be 70 years with no carriers. 10-20 years of "prototype carriers" and then a couple of years of "fleet carriers", and yes that spells the end of the battleship era.... thats kind of the point....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

H-42, 43, 44 were a paper designs as I mentioned only as an example of what was being planned in an attempt to design a sufficiently armoured battleship.

You forgot the H-51 design with 3x3 53 cm/52 (21") Gerät 36.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...