CV's vs BB's

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:12 am

I'm waiting an episode of WW-II in Color on the Military Channel that's focused on the Med. What struck me was that the British were able to sink and/or heavily damage 3 of the 6 Italian BB's with 9 Swordfish bi-planes launched from a carrier. This air strike against the Italian BB's at Tranato also came up in the movie Tora, Tora, Tora that I watched last night and on an episode of about spies during WW-II. The Japanese sent one of their agents to Tranto to gather all the intelligence he could on how the raid was conducted. Also, a British double-agent (or is it an axis double-agent?) working really for the British was also tasked by the axis to find out what details he could from his British sources. As an aside this double-agent was sent to the US and tasked with getting all the details he could about the US Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor. He put 2 and 2 together and tried to relay this information to J. Edgar Hoover, head of the US FBI. However; Hoover would have none of this agent and refuse to cooperate with him. He even threatened to have him arrested and charged as a sky just on the basis that he could do whatever he wanted because he was the head of the FBI. The bottom line was that we (the US) could have gotten very good and actionable intelligence that would have prevented, or significantly mitigated the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor but we didn't essentially because of J. Edgar's arrogance and dislike of foreigners. I wished I could remember this agents name but he had a reputation of, and was, quite a playboy. By the way, his son is still alive and the details of this episode was based on his father's (the double agent's) diary.

Sorry ... I digest ... my point of the post is to ask if CV's and TAC's should be more potent against BB's & DD's? One impact of this would be to force the axis to station fighters to cover the Italian BB's in the Med or face significant losses from UK raids with CVs. I guess what I'm suggesting is that CV and TAC airstrikes that are not intercepted first become much more effective against warships. What do you think?

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:33 am

Maybe but only against ships in port. This should include subs at ports also. But being a strategic game I believe it all evens out.

Trying to say all attacks at ships in ports would have higher losses. These two examples were performed while the enemy was unprepared.

First the Italians, and then the US at Pearl. I thought the plans against Pearl was already in motion before the Taranto attack.

After these surprise attacks it was very hard to catch ships or attack with the results achieved.

I would not believe that German planes would be as effective as UK, US and the Japanese. The Germans and Italians would have to build CV's first to achieve the same effective attacks because the naval pilots would be trained in attacking naval forces.

amcdonel · Post by **amcdonel** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:33 am

Another example of TAC air prowess against capital ships from Wikipedia:

"The battleship HMS Prince of Wales, the battlecruiser HMS Repulse and four destroyers (Force Z) reached Malaya before the Japanese began their air assaults. This force was thought to be a deterrent to the Japanese. Japanese aircraft, however, sank the capital ships, leaving the east coast of the Malayan peninsula exposed and allowing the Japanese to continue their amphibious landings."

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(53)

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:39 am

Not any TAC could had performed these attacks. They have to be trained for naval combat. Only the US, Japanese, and UK forces had the training.

The Japanese had naval trained land-based aircraft to perform these attacks. They had one air Division that was considered to be naval trained the other land-based (i.e. Army) were not as skilled, so their results would not be as high.

So Germany and Italy would have to invest (i.e. build) a CV each to achieve this status.

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:41 am

1. So, should US & UK CV's be more potent against all naval targets including transports? This could represent US & UK naval pilot training and the fact that they (especially the US) were involved in carrier based naval war in the Pacific. By the way, it was Japanese land based planes that sunk the BC Repulse and the BB Prince of Whales.

2. And, should US & UK carrier based planes get an additional attack bonus against any unit in port if they can attack without first being intercepted? This additional bonus would represent a surprise attack bonus. And, this would force the axis to provide fighter protection of the Italian navy or risk additional losses due to surprise carrier attacks.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:42 am

If CV come into the range of BB's main artillery( 280-380mm 12-18km), CV is nothing . If CV find BB at the range of their TAC (150-250km) , BB is nothing . Between these ( 18-150km) , CV has the advantage . Also ,CV has faster max speed than BB . Usually CV has 25-30 knots ,but BB 's max speed is around 20-25 knots .

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:58 am

Morris wrote:If CV come into the range of BB's main artillery( 280-380mm 12-18km), CV is nothing . If CV find BB at the range of their TAC (150-250km) , BB is nothing . Between these ( 18-150km) , CV has the advantage . Also ,CV has faster max speed than BB . Usually CV has 25-30 knots ,but BB 's max speed is around 20-25 knots .

At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral 'Bull' Halsey had motored his BBs off north hoping to catch the remaining Japanese carriers in the open and annihilate them. Instead, he opened the door to the Japanese BBs to come in a do the same to him. The Japanese couldn't quite pull it off – they were massively outnumbered, for one thing – but it does speak to the point that a carrier in close proximity to an enemy BB is toast.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:13 am

metolius wrote:
Morris wrote:If CV come into the range of BB's main artillery( 280-380mm 12-18km), CV is nothing . If CV find BB at the range of their TAC (150-250km) , BB is nothing . Between these ( 18-150km) , CV has the advantage . Also ,CV has faster max speed than BB . Usually CV has 25-30 knots ,but BB 's max speed is around 20-25 knots .
At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral 'Bull' Halsey had motored his BBs off north hoping to catch the remaining Japanese carriers in the open and annihilate them. Instead, he opened the door to the Japanese BBs to come in a do the same to him. The Japanese couldn't quite pull it off – they were massively outnumbered, for one thing – but it does speak to the point that a carrier in close proximity to an enemy BB is toast.

The CV japan met were all jeep carriers ,not the real carrier , They just built for escort & air support to marine which was small & no arm defence . It was an accident & huge mistake made by Halsey , but Japan played much worse than Halsey . Actually after Midway , Japan's navy was just on their way to the bottom of ocean . They never had any good performance but some DD & torpedo . Their BB & CV were all big coffins.

Cybvep · Post by **Cybvep** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:13 am

The Japanese built both large and small fleet carriers. However, they still believed that battleships would dominate the seas and were preparing for a decisivie naval battle between battleships which never came.

CVs should be powerful, but only with a proper screening force. The best counter against them should be land-based aircraft and subs.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:26 am

I think the naval warfare work pretty well in GS. If we had made a Pacific game then we would have had to change the rules, but in Europe the current rules seem to work pretty well.

I think naval units are quite weak when bombarded. E. g. I used 2 Axis tactical bombers to sink the Russian battleship in the Black Sea. If you upgrade with surface tech you get better survivability so the BB's can withstand bombardment better. Allied BB's weren't that easy to sink late in the war. Flak and support from other ships helped keep them alive. US naval forces were very good at repairing damaged ships so they didn't sink. E. g. the Enterprise CV was hit so badly several times that it should have sunk, but the crew kept it afloat. A BB unit in GS is not just a couple of BB's, but a fleet with BB's as the main ships. They contain cruisers, protecting destroyers etc. A CV unit is a fleet with CV's as the core units. So in order to sink a CV or BB you also have to sink the protecting cruisers and destroyers.

These ships are expensive to build and take a long time to put on the water so I think it's fair they can't be sunk just by a lucky tac bomber run. You need a dedicated attack on these ships to sink them.

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:16 pm

Actually it was torpedo aircraft that performed the attack at Taranto and Pearl Harbor. It was also Torpedo aircraft

that sunk the HMS Repulse. It still comes back to Naval pilot training and naval aircraft.

you could say that CV's could have a bonus of +1or more against Naval targets depending upon a Tech advance in a couple of

categories to have this capability. It still requires the Major power to build and deploy a CV for the first requirement.

1) You need to have a CV on the map.

2) Suggestion - Techs could be at least lvl one in Surface, ASW, Industry, FTR, TAC, Organization,

3) Some countries would have auto advantages because of historical background.

For the Germans and Italians to have this bonus they have to deploy a CV.

Then next thing for GS 3.0 is better FoW for Naval forces for Cat and Mouse. We have the luxury of all seeing satellites in 1939

Land-based TAC will not have this advantage. The Japanese had naval trained LBA. The US in the Pacific had Marine and Naval Pilots

based at Islands (ie a non-movable CV). Germany was still of the mind-set of the BB being the king of the sea and not Naval aircraft.

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:59 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:I think the naval warfare work pretty well in GS. If we had made a Pacific game then we would have had to change the rules, but in Europe the current rules seem to work pretty well.

I agree. If you see my AAR against Doug in early game I was able to sink an unlucky german destroyer that intended to cross the Channel to Brest. British carrier at Portsmouth got 6:0 odds. This seems to be pretty enough for simulating what is being discussed in this thread.

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:32 pm

Morris wrote:
metolius wrote:
Morris wrote:If CV come into the range of BB's main artillery( 280-380mm 12-18km), CV is nothing . If CV find BB at the range of their TAC (150-250km) , BB is nothing . Between these ( 18-150km) , CV has the advantage . Also ,CV has faster max speed than BB . Usually CV has 25-30 knots ,but BB 's max speed is around 20-25 knots .
At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral 'Bull' Halsey had motored his BBs off north hoping to catch the remaining Japanese carriers in the open and annihilate them. Instead, he opened the door to the Japanese BBs to come in a do the same to him. The Japanese couldn't quite pull it off – they were massively outnumbered, for one thing – but it does speak to the point that a carrier in close proximity to an enemy BB is toast.
The CV japan met were all jeep carriers ,not the real carrier , They just built for escort & air support to marine which was small & no arm defence . It was an accident & huge mistake made by Halsey , but Japan played much worse than Halsey . Actually after Midway , Japan's navy was just on their way to the bottom of ocean . They never had any good performance but some DD & torpedo . Their BB & CV were all big coffins.

I think the chaps on the escort carriers would have taken offense...

they had a pretty tough job, and none of the glamour of the fleet carriers.

If it HAD been the fleet carriers, though, they still would have been in a very tough spot. As it was, the US threw everything with a gun at the enemy BBs (including destroyers) and the Japanese, in their confusion, didn't press home their temporary advantage. The potential, existed, however briefly, for a bigger Japanese victory... although it still wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war noticeably.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:45 am

metolius wrote:
Morris wrote:
metolius wrote: At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral 'Bull' Halsey had motored his BBs off north hoping to catch the remaining Japanese carriers in the open and annihilate them. Instead, he opened the door to the Japanese BBs to come in a do the same to him. The Japanese couldn't quite pull it off – they were massively outnumbered, for one thing – but it does speak to the point that a carrier in close proximity to an enemy BB is toast.
The CV japan met were all jeep carriers ,not the real carrier , They just built for escort & air support to marine which was small & no arm defence . It was an accident & huge mistake made by Halsey , but Japan played much worse than Halsey . Actually after Midway , Japan's navy was just on their way to the bottom of ocean . They never had any good performance but some DD & torpedo . Their BB & CV were all big coffins.
I think the chaps on the escort carriers would have taken offense... they had a pretty tough job, and none of the glamour of the fleet carriers.

If it HAD been the fleet carriers, though, they still would have been in a very tough spot. As it was, the US threw everything with a gun at the enemy BBs (including destroyers) and the Japanese, in their confusion, didn't press home their temporary advantage. The potential, existed, however briefly, for a bigger Japanese victory... although it still wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war noticeably.

Yes, the escort carriers did a unbelievable job & survive from the Japan's BB fleet . Japan's general give up the attack at the last minute & turn back to Japan . anyway , the Japanese general didn't know what they met , they thought they were the real fleet carrier . The Japanese fleet had been air raided for all the time & 2 BB sunk .So when this happened , they were completely confused .

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:13 pm

CV is already very deadly vs surface ships. Or you want it to destroy whole unit with one hit?

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:33 pm

I think we should let things be as is. I don't see anything broken here. If we wanted to fix something then we should have introduced naval bombers as a separate air unit. But I don't think many players would build many of these.

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:48 pm

I agree to leave it as is. The game models combat very well.

amcdonel · Post by **amcdonel** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:56 am

I agree - leave it as it is...

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:00 am

Stauffenberg wrote:I think we should let things be as is. I don't see anything broken here. If we wanted to fix something then we should have introduced naval bombers as a separate air unit. But I don't think many players would build many of these.

Yes, naval bomber sedom used in WW2 in Europe but the compaign to hurt Bismack . So just no change .