BC v BB

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

BC v BB

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> BC v BB

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

BC v BB - 1/21/2021 2:58:54 PM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

Just a quick question

Does it make any difference if ships are classified as a BC or BB. Just for the sake of good order I wanted to classify all fast battleships battlecruisers= 30kt+. to make it easier for players especially if they are unfamiliar.

I could not seem to find anything that will suggest it makes any difference but just wanted to check if any players have found anything when modding before I change them.

Post #: 1

RE: BC v BB - 1/21/2021 10:05:32 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I wrestled with this in my Mods years ago. Finally came up with the system of BB, Fast BB (30 Knot+), and BC (30+ Knots and less armor).

Examples for BCs: Kongo-Class, Strasbourg-Class, B-65/B-64, Alaska-Class

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 2

RE: BC v BB - 1/22/2021 9:45:05 AM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

OK and thanks...

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3

RE: BC v BBReply to Message Login jmolyson - 1/22/2021 10:40:19 PM

jmolyson

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline

BC should have significantly less armor which makes them faster than a regular battleship but much more vulnerable.

Prewar battleships were mostly WWI veterans and incapable of keeping up with aircraft carriers. Only the battleships built after the mid-30's were fast enough to accompany the big fleet carriers.

They were consummate fuel hogs, however, which is why Nimitz kept the older ones out of the Solomons Campaign. The old US battleships were also very fragile when attacked by multiple torpedoes. Ditto for British BC such as Repulse vs the IJN.

Also remember that when BC's fought other capital ships, such as HMS Hood vs Bismarck, they normally got sunk. Heavyweight boxers with glass jaws.

Therefore your BC's should be as fast as the parent navy's CVs and used for AAA platforms. Let the air groups kill enemy capital ships.

Joe Molyson

_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 4

RE: BC v BBReply to Message Login jmolyson - 1/23/2021 12:18:12 PM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

ok and thanks. It is always nice to have the luxury of being able to deploy all the ships in all the right places at the right time. I think one reason why so many battlecruisers would deploy and be lost was because they were the ships that could get to the spot they need to be at the right speed. In this game obviously fast surface unit usually need to arrive at night. that's why slow battleships are a liability at times.

My point was I just wanted to make sure I classify the right ships as the right classes for the sake of good order. I think I have pretty much got it now.

(in reply to jmolyson)

Post #: 5

RE: BC v BBReply to Message Login jmolyson - 1/23/2021 4:02:48 PM

jmolyson

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline

Sounds great. Enjoy your game!

_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 6

RE: BC v BB - 4/28/2021 12:16:34 AM

seanmac456

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/22/2021
Status: offline

I personally subscribe to the difference between a battleship and battlecruisers is how they are subdivided by this metric Hood is a battlecruiser as are the Alaskas on the other hand Iowas and the Scharnhorsts were battleships

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 7

RE: BC v BB - 5/4/2021 4:33:17 PM

jmolyson

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline

Sean:

The German Kriegsmarine had only two battleships (Schlachtschiffe): Largest German commerce-raiding warship class with eight 15-inch radar-controlled main guns. Also carried 4 Bordfliegergruppe floatplanes for reconnaissance. They were capable of fighting the largest Allied battleships one-on-one as well as of course sinking other enemy warships and merchantmen. The class included the KMS Bismarck and Tirpitz.

The Germans also had two modern battlecruisers (Schlatchkreuzer): Large second-generation German commerce-raiding warships with nine 11-inch radar-controlled main guns. Also carried 3 Bordfliegergruppe floatplanes for reconnaissance. The British called them the �ugly sisters�. The class included the KMS Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Note the much smaller main guns.

The Germans also had three older operational "armored ships" (Panzerschiffe) which could because of their relatively light main armament be called "battlecruisers": First-generation large German commerce-raiding warships with six 11-inch radar-controlled main guns. Also carried a Bordfliegergruppe floatplane for reconnaissance. The Allies incorrectly called them �pocket battleships�, perhaps for reverse propaganda purpose or Churchillian hyperbole. Included the RMS/KMS Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee. After the loss of the Graf Spee in the South Atlantic Deutschland was renamed L�tzow for purposes of morale.

The Scharnhorst definitely was not a "battleship", too lightly armored and armed.

Incidentally, none of these ships was worth their weight in U-boats.

Joe

Joe

_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to seanmac456)

Post #: 8

RE: BC v BB - 5/4/2021 9:43:58 PM

AtParmentier

Posts: 64
Joined: 12/15/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmolyson

Sean:

The German Kriegsmarine had only two battleships (Schlachtschiffe): Largest German commerce-raiding warship class with eight 15-inch radar-controlled main guns. Also carried 4 Bordfliegergruppe floatplanes for reconnaissance. They were capable of fighting the largest Allied battleships one-on-one as well as of course sinking other enemy warships and merchantmen. The class included the KMS Bismarck and Tirpitz.

The Germans also had two modern battlecruisers (Schlatchkreuzer): Large second-generation German commerce-raiding warships with nine 11-inch radar-controlled main guns. Also carried 3 Bordfliegergruppe floatplanes for reconnaissance. The British called them the �ugly sisters�. The class included the KMS Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Note the much smaller main guns.

The Germans also had three older operational "armored ships" (Panzerschiffe) which could because of their relatively light main armament be called "battlecruisers": First-generation large German commerce-raiding warships with six 11-inch radar-controlled main guns. Also carried a Bordfliegergruppe floatplane for reconnaissance. The Allies incorrectly called them �pocket battleships�, perhaps for reverse propaganda purpose or Churchillian hyperbole. Included the RMS/KMS Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee. After the loss of the Graf Spee in the South Atlantic Deutschland was renamed L�tzow for purposes of morale.

The Scharnhorst definitely was not a "battleship", too lightly armored and armed.

Incidentally, none of these ships was worth their weight in U-boats.

Joe

Joe

The Scharnhorst were definitely battleships. Their armour is almost equal to that of the Bismarcks and their guns were the maximum allowed according to the German - English Naval Treaty. They were classed as Schlachtschiffe by the Germans.
Their armour scheme might have been outdated, which lowered the deck armour somewhat (even then Scharnhorsts had about 155mm deck armour combined compared to the Bismarck 170mm combined max). Beltarmour on the Scharnhorsts was thicker on the thickest points compared to the Bismarcks.
With more know-how the ships could have turned out far better, but within the limitations according to the treaty they are the biggest and best the Germans could have build.

Overall the only point where they may be considered 'battlecruisers' is at their armament, but given the limitations of the treaty that doesn't hold well.

(in reply to jmolyson)

Post #: 9

RE: BC v BB - 5/4/2021 10:43:03 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

Gun size determines whether or not it is a "Battleship" or not. Others will chime in on this....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to AtParmentier)

Post #: 10

RE: BC v BB - 5/5/2021 3:17:09 AM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtParmentier

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmolyson

Sean:

The German Kriegsmarine had only two battleships (Schlachtschiffe): Largest German commerce-raiding warship class with eight 15-inch radar-controlled main guns. Also carried 4 Bordfliegergruppe floatplanes for reconnaissance. They were capable of fighting the largest Allied battleships one-on-one as well as of course sinking other enemy warships and merchantmen. The class included the KMS Bismarck and Tirpitz.

The Germans also had two modern battlecruisers (Schlatchkreuzer): Large second-generation German commerce-raiding warships with nine 11-inch radar-controlled main guns. Also carried 3 Bordfliegergruppe floatplanes for reconnaissance. The British called them the �ugly sisters�. The class included the KMS Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Note the much smaller main guns.

The Germans also had three older operational "armored ships" (Panzerschiffe) which could because of their relatively light main armament be called "battlecruisers": First-generation large German commerce-raiding warships with six 11-inch radar-controlled main guns. Also carried a Bordfliegergruppe floatplane for reconnaissance. The Allies incorrectly called them �pocket battleships�, perhaps for reverse propaganda purpose or Churchillian hyperbole. Included the RMS/KMS Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee. After the loss of the Graf Spee in the South Atlantic Deutschland was renamed L�tzow for purposes of morale.

The Scharnhorst definitely was not a "battleship", too lightly armored and armed.

Incidentally, none of these ships was worth their weight in U-boats.

Joe

Joe

The Scharnhorst were definitely battleships. Their armour is almost equal to that of the Bismarcks and their guns were the maximum allowed according to the German - English Naval Treaty. They were classed as Schlachtschiffe by the Germans.
Their armour scheme might have been outdated, which lowered the deck armour somewhat (even then Scharnhorsts had about 155mm deck armour combined compared to the Bismarck 170mm combined max). Beltarmour on the Scharnhorsts was thicker on the thickest points compared to the Bismarcks.
With more know-how the ships could have turned out far better, but within the limitations according to the treaty they are the biggest and best the Germans could have build.

Overall the only point where they may be considered 'battlecruisers' is at their armament, but given the limitations of the treaty that doesn't hold well.

Battlecruiser guns with battleship armour. They were supposed to be upgunned with 15 inch guns - or their metric equivalent.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to AtParmentier)

Post #: 11

RE: BC v BB - 5/5/2021 8:52:37 PM

jmolyson

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline

The Kriegsmarine classified the Scharnhorst-class ships (Gneisenau and Scharnhorst) as Schlatchkreuzer due to gun caliber. Schlatchkreuzer means "battle cruiser". A ship armed with 11-inch guns for any reason is not a battleship. This includes not only the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst but also the Panzerschiffe (armored ships) Graf Spee, Deutschland and Admiral Scheer. Panzerschiffe simply means "armored ship" and was used by the Germans to circumvent treaty restrictions. They were never considered "battleships" or "pocket battleships" except by some imaginative Royal Navy naval staff guy.

Read Sea Warfare 1939-1945 A German Viewpoint by Vice Admiral Friedrich Ruge, former Kriegsmarine senior admiral and former head of the postwar Federal Germany Navy. On page 22 he says that: "With their (Gneisenau and Scharnhorst) relatively weak armament and high speed these were really belated battle-cruisers." They were "belated" because the major world navies were moving beyond battlecruisers to build faster battleships. The remaining operational Allied battlecruisers were updated WWI models and were much more heavily armed. Battlecruiser HMS Hood corrected the idea that a lightly armed battlecruiser even with battleship guns could long survive a fight with a real battleship. The Royal Navy ignored that lesson at Jutland so they had to relearn it again in the Denmark Strait.

Why did the Germans build the Panzerschiffe and Schlatchkreuzer. They were all out-gunned by British battleships and battlecruisers. The reason was commerce raiding on merchant ships, not a general fleet engagement. They were fast, reasonably well-armored against cruiser gunfire, but were designed to kill merchant ships while avoiding enemy battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers.

Off Norway in 1940 Scharnhorst with sister ship Gneisenau engaged but could not defeat HMS Renown, a British battle cruiser with 15-inch guns built during WWI. Renown badly damaged Gneisenau and Scharnhorst had to shepherd her away from the fight into an Arctic storm. The two Germans were no match for the single British battlecruiser. They were certainly not battleships. During the fight Renown fired almost as many 15" round as BOTH of her opponents 11" rounds and ran them off. Renown was damaged but not beaten, she chased the Germans away.

Gneisenau and Scharnhorst did later manage to sink aircraft carrier HMS Glorious and two escorting destroyers. Glorious was crowded with evacuated RAF aircraft from Norway and could not defend herself with embarked aircraft.

Gneisenau and Scharnhorst later raided into the Atlantic but avoided engaging the old battleships that escorted possible target convoys. They made some merchant ship kills but were run off from one convoy by the old battleship HMS Ramilles. They eventually returned to port at Brest, where they came under continuous RAF attack until they were withdrawn through the Channel back to Germany.

Both ships were damaged in the Channel Dash. Scharnhorst eventually made it back to Norway. Badly damaged Gneisenau was rebuilt but never received the upgrade guns that might have made her a real battleship. Instead she was decommissioned in July 1943.

Scharnhorst was sunk when it finally engaged a contemporary (real) British battleship HMS Duke of York in December 1943.

So by mission, history, armament and fate neither Gneisenau nor Scharnhorst were battleships nor did they every successfully engage a battleship.

It unfortunate that both the German and Royal Navies occasionally used the term for their own propaganda purposes.

I guess you could use the Editor to make them battleships, but that would be ahistorical.

_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 12

RE: BC v BB - 5/7/2021 1:26:28 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

The Kongo Class were indeed battlecruisers having the "current" armament of battleships in the 19teens when they were built but having only 8 inches of armor even after their rebuilds in the 1930s. Do remember that the HIJMS Hiei was disabled by a hit on her after steering (obviously also on her bridge) by an 8" shell hit during the surface action of 13 November 1942 which left her at the "tender" mercies of the aircraft flying from Henderson Field only 10 miles away. Maybe the Hiei survived several subsequent torpedo and bomb hits but it was scuttled because the Japanese could not move her any further away from Henderson Field and faced a future of infinite attacks from said airfield. (In this instance they took mercy on the crew.)

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 13

RE: BC v BB - 5/7/2021 1:47:49 AM

jmolyson

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline

I've always wondered why the Japanese did not commit Yamato during the Guadalcanal campaign. I read somewhere that it was because this super-battleship was a fuel hog.

Her 18-inch shells would have been much more powerful than the smaller caliber guns of earlier Japanese BB and cruisers.

Not sure if the available projectiles on Yamato were effective against land targets, that is, if they carried HE as well as AP rounds.

_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 14

RE: BC v BB - 5/7/2021 5:03:57 PM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

Well I started this thread so I'm going to contribute again!

It's been very interesting doing some research on the way ships are designed and thought out. And seeing the comments here.

Basically, quite a lot of terminology like BC was fairly obsolete by World War Two and its no real value in AE except as chrome�. It seems to me that battlecruisers were primarily aimed at engaging enemy cruisers having similar speed but much better armament, heavier and longer ranged. By the time World War Two arrived this mission had more or less disappeared. But there was a new mission for them in that they could be fast escorts for CV and they were quick enough for quick kill night actions.

Primarily when being designed, it seems they were looking for the maximum speed possible with the biggest guns possible. Everything else after that was negotiable, and usually of course, it was the armour, especially the deck. Something has to give. During the early period of BC design, I don't think many nations took the idea of plunging fire until the decks very seriously, and of course, later in the signal war did not take the issue of armour-piercing bombs too seriously either by the look of it. However, the Hood ( also in my mod) probably should have been cancelled as the flaws in her design were known even as she was laid down. The other 3 in the class were cancelled v lessons learned from Jutland.

As BB got faster we see Iowa and so on being defined as BB as there was no need for the classification as BC, but they would fit the classic mould.
Ironically Amagi and Kongo seem to have had fairly good armour considering the speeds they can still achieve (Amagi outside the treaty anyway) . I actually believe the Kongo class BC (and one Amagi) are one of the most useful ships in the early part of the game for Japan. As they can be risked in surface actions but are also good CV escorts. Just like Japan did and I bet Japan wished they had build the Amagi class. Most of the others are just too slow to get in and out quickly. The best allied BC is Constellation (another outside historical treaty) , the stats are impressive.

So in my mod I have classified ships that were built as BC as such and few starting BB are classified as BC (Like Kongo class). Ironically Japan can build the CB B65 with the 11-inch guns, but the later variants could have had 6 x 14-inch guns ( intended to replace the Kongos?) and I did call these BC as the fit the classic role but will probably only be used as CV escorts most of the time once late 43 arrives.

Furthermore, I did downgrade the durability on the elderly design ships a touch and increased it a touch on the more modern designs. This is not just a measure of their tonnage and armour but also advances in bulkhead design, riveting and so on. This unfortunately means that the older battlecruisers with weak armoured decks are especially vulnerable to plunging fire and bombs like the Hood. My mod tries to show the shortcomings of elderly designs and better design of the new. Some will disagree.

BB and BC can take unusual damage from small calibre at times � I had one of the old American battleships take 12 SYS , from one hit from a 5.9 inch Jap Old CL gun. Just a few turns ago.

Mod will be posted soon.

< Message edited by Cavalry Corp -- 5/7/2021 5:06:51 PM >

(in reply to jmolyson)

Post #: 15

RE: BC v BB - 5/7/2021 6:04:27 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmolyson

I've always wondered why the Japanese did not commit Yamato during the Guadalcanal campaign. I read somewhere that it was because this super-battleship was a fuel hog.

Her 18-inch shells would have been much more powerful than the smaller caliber guns of earlier Japanese BB and cruisers.

Not sure if the available projectiles on Yamato were effective against land targets, that is, if they carried HE as well as AP rounds.

The difficulty in reloading the main guns as well as just how much steel and explosives were used per shell.

< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 5/8/2021 3:18:17 PM >

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to jmolyson)

Post #: 16

RE: BC v BB - 5/8/2021 2:44:04 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

The B-64/B-65 designs were fascinating. the -64 had smaller guns but a solid amount of Long Lances while the -65 carried the advanced 14-Inchers that were meant to replace the Kongo's older battery.

They were truly cruiser-killers. We, here, would see them as advanced CV escorts. Fast, strong AA, and able to defend a CTF if intercepted. Definitely BCs!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 17

RE: BC v BB - 5/10/2021 3:14:00 PM

jmolyson

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline

The Germans and Japanese, of course, had very different maritime histories and missions for their heavy combatants.

The Germans never were invested in CV's for WWII, unlike the Atlantic Allies. So escorting CV's were never their thing. All of their ships, including Bismarck and Tirpitz were meant primarily to cut the Atlantic lifeline to Britain. They were faster than Allied battleships and more heavily armed than Allied cruisers. They didn't want to fight either, they were after merchant ships. Graf Spee, Bismarck and Scharnhorst were after merchant ships and stumbled into fleet actions for which they were not tasked. Loss of HMS Hood and damage to HMS Exeter did not seriously change the fleet-on-fleet balance between Germany and Britain. What did change was that in each case many more merchant ships would have been sunk if these big German ships had escaped detection and gone on to their commerce-raiding task.

A better bet for the Kriegsmarine would have been "all in" on U-boats, by far the most cost effective merchant ship killer the Germans had. It was a close war until Allied antisubmarine technology caught up in May 1943.

The Japanese (in my opinion) were not really after merchant ships per se, they wanted to sink Allied warships. They wanted the big Plan Orange climactic fleet action just as much as the U.S. Navy did. They wanted to kill American battleships with carriers, cruisers and subs so that the U.S. battle line was drastically weakened before the main engagement. Matrix does a good job with the Plan Orange game so I will not digress except to say that the war in the Pacific was fought with the aircraft carrier, not the battleship as the primary antagonist in the climactic fleet action (example Coral Sea and Midway).

Japanese submarines could have been more effective by direct and sustained attacks against the U.S. fleet train and the lifelines to Hawaii and the SW Pacific. They were little threat to the U.S. West Coast after early 1942, although the range and capability were there. Yes they did sink crippled Yorktown, a few destroyers, Wasp and damaged North Carolina. But none of these losses changed the outcome of Midway or the Guadalcanal Campaign.

When the Japanese failed to properly attack the U.S. logistics pipeline, they permitted the U.S. to offset initial tactical deficiencies with increased production and distribution of war materials. Ford Island airfield and Pearl Harbor as a support base was operating the night of December 7.

The Japanese also left their own logistics in peril of American submarine interdiction. The Japanese were slow to produce proper ASW vessels, and diverted them often from in this roll.

So whether ships are battlecruisers or battleships is a secondary question. Ships decide battles, navies win or lose wars. Carriers and submarines were the weapons of decision in both the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific. Escort carriers (and VLR aircraft) displaced the U-boat in the Atlantic. The Japanese had no offsets for American submarines and much of their army and air force starved dispersed across a lost empire.

_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 18

RE: BC v BB - 5/11/2021 10:36:45 AM

Hrafnagud

Posts: 87
Joined: 12/9/2018
Status: offline

They did carry the Type 0 Common (or HE) shell. But this was relatively low-filler (4.5% bursting charge) compared to the 2.3% for the Type 91 APC round. This would have resulted in suboptimal fragmentation against soft targets (the casing splinters into fewer, larger, heavier pieces) compared to, for example, the Iowas' HC shells (with a 8% filler).

(in reply to jmolyson)

Post #: 19