Can and how do you build hybrid BB/CVs?

[dizzy]

It could totally happen! The Japanese I-400. I want Sub Carriers! Putting this in the suggestions thread.

[liam556]

How would that even work in the game?

[dizzy]

Abstracted sub warfare, but the sub could scout and have increased fleet support hits in battle and better raiding with a plane.

The game doesnt handle sub warfare in battles, theres no depth charging or submerging or any of that minutia that would be necessary to make it a playable asset. So it'd just be another abstraction for after battle report statistics.

[mycophobia]

Sub already exist in the tactical battles to launch torp at nearby enemy ships, and some have reported seeing DD "Attacking submarines" showing up in the message panel.

Sub launching seaplane scouts is a cute feature to add, not something I'd be in any rush to see tho.

[avimimus]

Nov 3, 2019 11:09:52 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Ok, gents. The old man is stupid. Why are we trying to build hybrid battleship/carriers which in a tactical sense are almost useless. Educate me, if you please. 

Happily sir!

I agree with the historical analyses: 
A fleet of hybrids will always have less aircraft and less armour or less firepower than a fleet mixed carriers and battleships (likely something about armouring hangars)? I also agree with the observation that carriers and combat ships ought to be deployed in completely different ways - which prevents hybrids from fulfilling both roles simultaneously.

So, yes - strategically and tactically a hybrid CV/BC is almost useless! But what about a hybrid CVL/CA??

The larger air-complement would significantly increase the likelihood of spotting enemy formations first. The flight deck allows launching and recovering aircraft in higher seas than is possible for float-planes (albeit the smaller flight-deck still wouldn't be as good as a carrier proper).


Higher performance aircraft can be launched...
- This allows the ship to have a handful of fighters to augment its anti-aircraft armament in protecting itself from escort carriers.
- Being able to launch a half dozen torpedo bombers could pose a signficant threat to an escort carrier or to a second rate battleship:
-- On the defense this means that a warship in pursuit could be forced to take evasive action, increasing the likelihood of escaping from a superior enemy.
-- Offensively, this allows a surprise attack against a superior warship and removes the need for carrying armour or armament capable of challenging a battlecruiser or battleship. If the aircraft fail to score a hit with their torpedoes the CAV has a higher likelihood of being able to break off the attack.
--- The result is also that the main armament can be redesigned around a sextet or octet of 8" or 9" guns... which have superior range to light cruiser armament and a higher rate of fire compared to battle-cruiser armament - making them ideal for quickly dispatching destroyers, light cruisers, and merchants. This also gives it a superior ability to protect itself when surprised by smaller ships, effectively allowing it to escort itself in environments where destroyers would be unsuitable.

So basically - we have the perfect raider. It certainly beats the compromise called the 'pocket battleship' for such purposes. If not being used as a raider, such a vessel would make a good convoy escort, scouting, or harrasment ship.

So my advice would be - go smaller when designing: Use it for the guerre de course, to show the flag and to confuse enemy commanders!

[avimimus]

Nov 4, 2019 17:52:35 GMT -6 mycophobia said:

Sub already exist in the tactical battles to launch torp at nearby enemy ships, and some have reported seeing DD "Attacking submarines" showing up in the message panel.

Sub launching seaplane scouts is a cute feature to add, not something I'd be in any rush to see tho.

I'd see 'fleet submarines' as a higher priority (mainly for historical purposes)... they'd basically travel with the fleet (including into foreign waters) and increase the likelihood of torpedoing an enemy vessel after the combat is over... (at least until submarines are modelled more thoroughly).

That said, part of me does want to try out the armoured submarine cruiser concepts that might've existed if the arms limitation treaties had played out a little differnetly!

[dizzy]

I've always though the submarine needs more and detailed involvement in rtw...

[oldpop2000]

Well, as most of you know, I build many medium and minelaying submarines. I used them in trade warfare, but not unrestricted which does nothing but get the rest of world upset with you. I have experimented with fleet support but the countries I play, most of the time the medium's are in the area and do the job along with their regular missions. I also keep a bunch of older coastal boats to harass the enemy on their coastal raids.

[pirateradar]

The promised hybrids! Thanks for doing the work to point this out. It's fun even if they're not necessarily militarily viable.

[broadsides]

"Why are we trying to build hybrid battleship/carriers ..."
In reality it was the same reason the US Navy in the 1980s tested towed blimps on their refitted BB task forces, to give air CAP/Recon assets to a non CV task force. Japan did it to offset CV losses and an overloaded ship building program that could not expand CV production. They did not expect to them to launch decisive airstrikes in a battle. It's tactical role was still as a battle-wagon.
In the US Navy's case of BB blimps it was to put an airborne AWACS style over-the-horizon surveillance ability to the modernized battle-wagons. It was the only modern asset they felt they lacked and with the improvement of air launched ASM one of the reasons they went back into mothballs.

Whether the game mechanics will treat it properly is another matter. I tried making a harbor/port monitor with a 14" single gun CL but the game would still have it in open water battles when it really should be in a port as a floating big gun battery.

[avimimus]

Dec 4, 2019 12:07:36 GMT -6 broadsides said:

Whether the game mechanics will treat it properly is another matter. I tried making a harbor/port monitor with a 14" single gun CL but the game would still have it in open water battles when it really should be in a port as a floating big gun battery.

Yes, and one also gets slightly more armoured (CA class) monitors appearing in the main battle line... it'd really be good if they were their own class which only appeared in coastal bombardment missions.

[avimimus]

I thought it would be easy to model Fleet and Cruiser submarines:
- Fleet submarines would cost a lot more but slightly increase the likelihood of an enemy ship being torpedoed after the battle
- Cruiser submarines would increase the likelihood of winning a gun battle with an enemy destroyer or light cruiser.

Both types would be otherwise identical to a medium range submarine, except that they would be much more expensive (making the benefits questionable). They would be useful for properly mirroring the doctrines of the time period though.

Submarine carriers are harder to justify... unless one is going to have special events (e.g. attacking canals) or allow them to carry suicide torpedoes - it just wouldn't make much sense. Their ability to scout was probably offset by their increased vulnerability, and only the suicide torpedo option seems reasonable (attacking the Panama canal always seemed like a pipe dream to me). However, I could still make a case for two more:
- Special submarine (increased chance of destroying enemy ships in harbour using commandos, which becomes an increased chance if the suicide torpedo technology is developed and the 'kamikaze' option is checked).
- Cargo submarine (expensive, but very slightly alleviates the effects of blockades).

All of these are possible by changing special events rather than doing something more elaborate. As for more elaborate: I do agree that it would be neat to be able to select submarine technologies (snorkel, number of torpedo tubes, range, size of torpedo etc.) as it would give a better sense of when submarines were becoming obsolete. However, it would still seem that these design choices would end up combining to only a few values that would play out in the strategic screen... so I'm not sure it is worth it.

[brygun]

I will add a little bit to the discussion.

In this game there are times you can't handle CVs as they were in the ideal real world.

Depending on your fleet research they may be sailing, and strive to remain so, in sight of the gun line. A much greater risk of being engaged by then enemy gun line should they close up or your gun line be forced by damage, or terrain, to yield a blocking position. Alternatively, and its happened to me, a fast enemy BC might circle around a slow gun line to stumble onto your AI control-mode CVs.

The CVs of this game also sail up into some narrow places, like the Baltic, where steaming into the wind gets them bumping into the coast. On that coast might be enemy shore batteries and this has happened to me.

In these cases having some stern guns can be of use. I call these "tadpole" carriers as the stern of the carrier sticks out from the flight decks in a way resembling the tails of tadpoles that become frogs. These are gun positions 3 & 4 limited to single guns. Additional side guns, like S & T, can be fitted with more than one gun.

My experiments in this have shown that while they are poor fighters in some cases it can make a difference. One goal being to do enough damage to slow down a chasing enemy.

Another affect being that if they are 7" and up then the secondaries can be 6" without them messing up the carrier graphics.

Results of experiments are summarized as follows:

Experiments with large 14" guns in 3&4 were not able to stop the BC that can get around. They could do some wrecking of CA.

8" guns can help with CL but a CA with more numerous similiar size guns will probably slow the CV faster than the CV slows the CA.

10-12" guns at long range, increased elevation, have good deck penetration and fit in the CA hurting category.

Cost to mount armored turrets in 3,4,S,T add 8000 - 12000 tons to the total displacement. In a way this is the same as building a CA and welding it to the CV. The advantage being that in this game that welded-on-CA will never wander off on its own.