|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jun 3, 2019 1:44:42 GMT -6
raiders are a numbers game so the only raider worth building is maintaining 30+ AMCs with a single floatplane (very large fleets)
the purpose of raiding is to cause the enemy to collapse, and having a few expensive raider warships will never come close to giving the same results of many cheap AMCs
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 3, 2019 1:56:02 GMT -6
raiders are a numbers game so the only raider worth building is maintaining 30+ AMCs with a single floatplane (very large fleets) the purpose of raiding is to cause the enemy to collapse, and having a few expensive raider warships will never come close to giving the same results of many cheap AMCs Warship raider actually are more effective than AMCs at sinking merchants. I generally don’t do raiding warfare, but I do design my CLs with potential to raid in mind(since they aren’t very useful in the BC carnival of mid 20s anyways), that once I don’t need them for fleet scout duty( usually after beating enemy battlefleet), I send them all too raiding to hasten the enemy collapse. Building AMC to the point where they are effective feels too pricey for me when you can take advantage of your wartime budget to build your next BB
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 3, 2019 2:13:21 GMT -6
What better way to explore the ideas then to run them in a simulation! Like Rule the Waves 2! Rule the Waves 2 handles commerce raiding, carrier aircraft operations, and logistics far too abstractly to provide any real insight into how well one or another type of ship would work as a commerce raider in the real world. But you can make that assessment just on it's own without using RtW at all. Small carriers were tragically impaired when it came down to use aircraft as they got heavier with time. Hosho was barely able to operate biplanes when she was pressed into service for the distraction attack on the Aleutians as part of the Midway operation and later on she wasn't even useful in a training role because she couldn't embark any planes that were even close to the ones Japan was using in their fleet carriers. Small carriers had some serious issues. In small tonnage you simply couldn't embark enough avgas to keep any kind of lenghty air ops going. Small size and displacement also meant very small hangars with limited space to move the aircraft and keep them properly stored. Space for repair workshops would've been negligible. Small size would impose minuscle magazines for their ordnance, etc. Big fleet carriers usually didn't have more than some dozens of torpedoes on their magazines, because they were so heavy and bulky. Now go think how the situation was for minicarriers. Both Japan and the US tried the "small carrier approach". US with the still respectable size Ranger, Japan went to the extreme with Ryujo. Both never repeated the attempt. Both for very good reasons. The british didn't try - they had first hand experience on what happened with very small sized CVs, given their experience with Argus and Hermes. The only way to make a small carrier viable were the CVE conversions - and that only because nobody was bothered that those ships couldn't do more than 18-20 knots, nor that they were woefully protected for proper offensive carrier operations. They were mostly used to ferry planes, for ASW work, and for air support on invasions (as in the phillipines). They weren't expected to do more, and thus their limitations were much less problematic for them. For what they were supposed to do, they were cheap and dependable. But they weren't supposed to sail the oceans for half a year while conducting torpedo bombing ops on unsuspecting transports. First, because they lacked the speed to be useful raiders. And second, because they had no torpedoes on board (something that only became too apparent when the whole japanese battleline suddenly appeared next to a CVE squadron during the battle of the leyte gulf). And even those were very limited in what they could do and carry - CVEs wouldn't take a fighter bigger than a Wildcat, and their stores had room for rockets and a few bombs - torpedoes weren't even given an afterthought because how much space and weight they demanded. So, it's a simple no - a "small CV raider" would've not fared very well. And we don't need RtW to reach that conclussion .
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 3, 2019 2:18:22 GMT -6
As for the topic itself, I've had success with floatplane raiders. Instance below: 1940 design. To kill merchants anything bigger than 5'' is honestly overkill. Diesels, reliability, extreme range, manageable cost, floatplanes to increase merchant detection, and if intercepted 28 knots is enough to get out of dogde while lobbing a couple floatplanes to disrupt the pursuing enemy as you force him to maneouver to avoid the incoming bombs. This ship was intercepted a couple of time by a 30+ knot CLs and walked away untouched just because of that reason, and I never saw them with the dreaded (for raiders) * symbol.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 3, 2019 3:54:24 GMT -6
I would expect that for costs 2 light cruisers with seaplanes would be better.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 3, 2019 4:51:03 GMT -6
I would expect that for costs 2 light cruisers with seaplanes would be better.
Not so sure about that. There's no way I can build a 30+ knot CL with at least 6x5'' and some torpedoes and DP mounts for less than a total cost of 21000 (I've been trying just now). And that if whatever I try to build doesn't have reliable engines, doesn't have diesels (even more reliability), and has normal range. And it takes 20 months to build, and I wasn't able to fit a cat on it, much less floatplanes or floatplane hangar (and those floatplanes and hangar are the only reason I could go with less than 30 knots in my ship). This one costs 26800, takes 18 months to build, and comes with reliable engines, extreme range, diesels, 5 floatplanes and a catapult. For the extra 25% cost I'd say it's a pretty good deal. So it's not a case of "You can get 2 for that one"...more "you can get 4 for 3 of those". Considering that the AV raider I posted can make do with 28knots because the floatplanes force even faster ships to slow down to avoid being hit, that it will have no machinery problems when deployed, and can operate for months to no end without needing a tank refill (So the chances of internment or scuttling are minimal), while those 30+ knot cruisers enjoy none of those advantages, I'd say 3 of the design I posted are far more valuable (As raiders) than 4 cheaper CLs. And 30knots is the minimum you'd want if you don't have a few floatplanes to slow a pursuing enemy down, nor a cat to launch them. Then again, maybe it's me trying to design something too ambitious...if you manage to design a CL raider with the needed speed and tools for the job for less than 13.500 total cost, then yes, maybe you'd get 2 for 1. But I haven't been able to come (not by far) anywhere close to do it...and even then whatever the designed ship is, it won't be so well tailored for the role as that one, for extreme range, reliability, diesels and catapults/hangars come at a cost .
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 3, 2019 5:12:43 GMT -6
I would expect that for costs 2 light cruisers with seaplanes would be better.
Not so sure about that. There's no way I can build a 30+ knot CL with at least 6x5'' and some torpedoes and DP mounts for less than a total cost of 21000 (I've been trying just now). And that if whatever I try to build doesn't have reliable engines, doesn't have diesels (even more reliability), and has normal range. And it takes 20 months to build, and I wasn't able to fit a cat on it, much less floatplanes or floatplane hangar (and those floatplanes and hangar are the only reason I could go with less than 30 knots in my ship). This one costs 26800, takes 18 months to build, and comes with reliable engines, extreme range, diesels, 5 floatplanes and a catapult. For the extra 25% cost I'd say it's a pretty good deal. So it's not a case of "You can get 2 for that one"...more "you can get 4 for 3 of those". Considering that the AV raider I posted can make do with 28knots because the floatplanes force even faster ships to slow down to avoid being hit, that it will have no machinery problems when deployed, and can operate for months to no end without needing a tank refill (So the chances of internment or scuttling are minimal), while those 30+ knot cruisers enjoy none of those advantages, I'd say 3 of the design I posted are far more valuable (As raiders) than 4 cheaper CLs. And 30knots is the minimum you'd want if you don't have a few floatplanes to slow a pursuing enemy down, nor a cat to launch them. Then again, maybe it's me trying to design something too ambitious...if you manage to design a CL raider with the needed speed and tools for the job for less than 13.500 total cost, then yes, maybe you'd get 2 for 1. But I haven't been able to come (not by far) anywhere close to do it...and even then whatever the designed ship is, it won't be so well tailored for the role as that one, for extreme range, reliability, diesels and catapults/hangars come at a cost . For raider you can sacrifice almost everything.
This is quite useful for any European power as does not need long range and reliable engines. If it is built without torpedo tubes, you can get even below 11M.
Raider as UK in 1939.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 3, 2019 5:34:15 GMT -6
Well, you can sacrifize almost everything if you don't care wether the ship survives or actually lasts at all during a war . Don't get me wrong- this is an approach that can work. Specially as the UK because you have bases all across the globe, things as range or reliability don't matter too much because wherever that ship begins having trouble, it's highly likely you have a port where it can be serviced. Your design is perfectly viable for the UK needs ... it's a floating coffin for the german ones . And that's because Versailles Germany has nothing, no colonies, no refuelling posts, nowhere to go in case of machinery trouble: nothing at all. The ship you posted in raiding roles for a fleet like the 1920-versailles start Germany, would last a couple months away from home and then either break down (due to the speed-focused engines) or run out of fuel (due to medium range). PErsonally I do my raiding in areas beyond home. Or rather, at home I can keep a spare fleet CL doing convoy hunting roles. But the more ships the enemy has in the same area as your raider, the higher chance it gets to be intercepted, or at least forced to flee in the "strategic results" screens. meanwhile if you keep your ships mobile in the areas where the enemy has bases but not that many ships, the carnage can be real - and usually that happens pretty away from home and friendly bases . For that kind of raiding the ship I posted is king. For the one you propose, yours is great. Different needs - different designs, different approach towards cost/efficiency .
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jun 3, 2019 5:41:35 GMT -6
raiders are a numbers game so the only raider worth building is maintaining 30+ AMCs with a single floatplane (very large fleets) the purpose of raiding is to cause the enemy to collapse, and having a few expensive raider warships will never come close to giving the same results of many cheap AMCs Warship raider actually are more effective than AMCs at sinking merchants. I generally don’t do raiding warfare, but I do design my CLs with potential to raid in mind(since they aren’t very useful in the BC carnival of mid 20s anyways), that once I don’t need them for fleet scout duty( usually after beating enemy battlefleet), I send them all too raiding to hasten the enemy collapse. Building AMC to the point where they are effective feels too pricey for me when you can take advantage of your wartime budget to build your next BB perhaps, but 4 months to build @$750 each month per AMC is pretty reasonable, and once you get the AMC building out of the way in 8-12 months you can spend the rest of the war fleet building
i'l also note that every few turns i'l sink 50-70 merchants which is pretty nice
i'm at the point now where i build AMCs into the 50s since i find they are cheaper and take less losses than subs do
don't have a RtW2 pic, but i copied the design from RtW1 anyways
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 3, 2019 7:03:04 GMT -6
I have some feeling that interception of raiders is lower in RTW2 in period after which I played as I get seldom report that one of my ships thwarts enemy raiders. And I had over 40 light cruisers, in home area much large fleet to enemy France or Germany or Russia. I will see in my second playthrough but it strange as with seaplane and air powe it could be even easier.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 3, 2019 7:15:53 GMT -6
Well, you can sacrifize almost everything if you don't care wether the ship survives or actually lasts at all during a war . Don't get me wrong- this is an approach that can work. Specially as the UK because you have bases all across the globe, things as range or reliability don't matter too much because wherever that ship begins having trouble, it's highly likely you have a port where it can be serviced. Your design is perfectly viable for the UK needs ... it's a floating coffin for the german ones . And that's because Versailles Germany has nothing, no colonies, no refuelling posts, nowhere to go in case of machinery trouble: nothing at all. The ship you posted in raiding roles for a fleet like the 1920-versailles start Germany, would last a couple months away from home and then either break down (due to the speed-focused engines) or run out of fuel (due to medium range). Here: A long-range smallish CL raider with reliable engines using mid-1930s tech, for about the same cost as the one dorn posted. It's effectively unarmored, with a narrow 1" B / 1" D magazine box and nothing else, though if you want to put 2" T / 1" TT on it you can bump it up to 3900 tons and pay another million for the ship. If you want to give it six 5" guns instead of eight 4" DP guns, that also works. Both the US and Japan repeated the attempt - the Independence- and Saipan-class light carriers, the Zuiho- and Chitose-class light carriers, and the Ryuho were all small fleet carriers, though unlike with Ryujo, Ranger, and Wasp they didn't try to shove a full-sized carrier's air group onto them.
Britain likewise made use of small fleet carriers with the Colossus and Majestic classes and the by-then-small Centaur class. Also the much later Invincible class.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 3, 2019 9:07:35 GMT -6
As for the topic itself, I've had success with floatplane raiders. Instance below: 1940 design. To kill merchants anything bigger than 5'' is honestly overkill. Diesels, reliability, extreme range, manageable cost, floatplanes to increase merchant detection, and if intercepted 28 knots is enough to get out of dogde while lobbing a couple floatplanes to disrupt the pursuing enemy as you force him to maneouver to avoid the incoming bombs. This ship was intercepted a couple of time by a 30+ knot CLs and walked away untouched just because of that reason, and I never saw them with the dreaded (for raiders) * symbol. Does this ship actually work more effectively than a base CL raider? I mean, does RTW2 have code that can recognize the effectiveness of floatplanes finding and helping destroy merchant ships? Or is this only as equally effective as a run of the mill Long Range CL Raider?
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 3, 2019 9:10:12 GMT -6
A long-range smallish CL raider with reliable engines using mid-1930s tech5'' is already being a bit light on the offensive end for a cruiser. 4''s... and no torpedoes... well, just doesn't cut it for me, tbh . Long range is good but just not AS good. Also 29 knots and no planes which means the bonus for raiding from the floatplanes is lost, and that the second that ship crosses paths with a proper cruiser (30+ knots)... I guess, by any means, I'm not saying it's bad for the job, or useless, or that it won't work...but I'd rather go for the AV I posted. Both the US and Japan repeated the attempt - the Independence- and Saipan-class light carriers, the Zuiho- and Chitose-class light carriers, and the Ryuho were all small fleet carriers, though unlike with Ryujo, Ranger, and Wasp they didn't try to shove a full-sized carrier's air group onto them.
Britain likewise made use of small fleet carriers with the Colossus and Majestic classes and the by-then-small Centaur class. Also the much later Invincible classJapan's approach with those CVs was simply cheating the Treaties, because they weren't CVs...they were submarine tenders. That they had been built with such a design that turning them into carriers was a piece of cake was just a notable coincidence, no foul play intended by them at all . And even then those "light" CVs were quite less than succesful. But it's quite notable that for a strained construction-wise nation as Japan, the smallest CV they tried to build from the keel up after Pearl Harbor was a repeat of the Hiryu class; which on their eyes was the smallest and most economical they could go if they wanted a proper useful fleet carrier. They obviously were very aware of the limitations of small carriers. American's angle was somewhat different: the conversions weren't planned at all, yet they found themselves in the middle of a war, short of carriers, and 2 years removed from getting more (then as we all know the Essexs were built super fast, but that happening the way it did wasn't that clear from the american standpoint by early 1942); so they figured out that better to at least have some unoptimal carriers, than no carriers at all. The british case wasn't exactly the same though it originated on the same note. The Colossus and Majestics (with the obvious exception of Unicorn and other support subclasses) were also expedient wartime programs where the only priority was to put out as many hulls as possible in the smallest timeframe possible. But unlike the americans the british weren't interested in conversions - they built carriers from the keel up. With merchant standards, granted, almost unprotected and quite vulnerable, but at least those ships were designed purposefully for the mission so they ended up being a lot more capable than the japanese CVL conversions, or the american Independence/Saipans, if slow for carriers, and vulnerable to damage. HMS Invincible (the late 1970s built ship) wasn't a carrier. Didn't you know that? . The UK officially ditched that useless expensive concept when they retired the Audaciouses!!!! (Joking aside, the Invincibles are completely out of the scope of whatever happened during WW2,so hardly a comparison can be done with ships of that era).
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 3, 2019 9:13:33 GMT -6
Does this ship actually work more effectively than a base CL raider? I mean, does RTW2 have code that can recognize the effectiveness of floatplanes finding and helping destroy merchant ships? Or is this only as equally effective as a run of the mill Long Range CL Raider? The manual states as much, so I'll just go with the official word about it .
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 3, 2019 9:18:05 GMT -6
ramjb thanks, bro. I must've missed that in the manual! I'll have to give that a go. I also forget who it was, they deserve major credit, for telling me you can add to the number of an airstrike for floatplanes by clicking on the number of planes and ticking them higher so you dont ready them individually which is a pita. Makes having a larger compliment seaplane tender worthwhile.
|
|