Perk Battlegroup (e.g. Yamato)

[augustk]

I don't know many ship acronyms. What's CA, CB and BB stand for?

BB= Battleship
CB= Large Cruiser
CA=Heavy Cruiser

[columbus]

well when the F-14's are added you have to add a bigger CV a late class ESSEX class atleast

[JHerne]

The problem with upgrading the CV is that the Essex was the ultimate wartime fleet carrier, your next progressive step in carrier design was the Midway class, but none of them saw combat in WW2 (Midway and FDR were commissioned in Sept. and Oct. of 1945).

The problem that I see - is that any TG with a BB in it will make mincemeat of a normal CA battlegroup, unless each country's BB group specifically seeks the other out. Give the size of the maps, that's probably unlikely. The commonality of the existing CVs groups mean that one group typically doesn't have an overwhelming advantage over another, the notable exception being those maps that offer up dual-CA groups.

Perhaps - and I'm just tossing this idea out - the idea of having a single ship, perhaps a CB or BB, as a player-spawned surface raider, might have some merit. Eliminate the auto-puffy, have the AA controlled in the same manner as a bomber (all guns fire that can be brought to bear), and have it cost perks. It spawns from a port, and must be landed with range of a port.

While its true that most players won't spend huge perks to take a BB or CB out 'carrier hunting', it could certainly make for some interesting gameplay. The downside I see is no one upping to protect a single-player controlled ship like they do a CV.

Just a thought. I'd certainly enjoy tangling with a CV group.

[Clone155]

The problem with upgrading the CV is that the Essex was the ultimate wartime fleet carrier, your next progressive step in carrier design was the Midway class, but none of them saw combat in WW2 (Midway and FDR were commissioned in Sept. and Oct. of 1945).

The problem that I see - is that any TG with a BB in it will make mincemeat of a normal CA battlegroup, unless each country's BB group specifically seeks the other out. Give the size of the maps, that's probably unlikely. The commonality of the existing CVs groups mean that one group typically doesn't have an overwhelming advantage over another, the notable exception being those maps that offer up dual-CA groups.

Perhaps - and I'm just tossing this idea out - the idea of having a single ship, perhaps a CB or BB, as a player-spawned surface raider, might have some merit. Eliminate the auto-puffy, have the AA controlled in the same manner as a bomber (all guns fire that can be brought to bear), and have it cost perks. It spawns from a port, and must be landed with range of a port.

While its true that most players won't spend huge perks to take a BB or CB out 'carrier hunting', it could certainly make for some interesting gameplay. The downside I see is no one upping to protect a single-player controlled ship like they do a CV.

Just a thought. I'd certainly enjoy tangling with a CV group.

This would be awesome, but it would get boring in between battles. Also, I can see players spawn camping ports for enemy CVs or other BBs.

[Ack-Ack]

     Off the top of my head I cannot recall a single battlewagon sunk by a single aircraft in WW2.
Most of them took ENORMOUS amounts of damage from torpedo and bomb hits before sinking.
The Bismarck was crippled by a single hit, but it took quite a few big gun hits to finish the job.

Yep, even though some people like to use HMS Repulse as an example of how bombers can attack and sink a battleship in reality it was 4 or 5 torpedo hits that did in Repulse.

ack-ack

[JHerne]

The loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse was a textbook example of airpower dominating surface combatants. It was a 3-phase operation, high altitude bombers (Nells) in the first wave, followed by torpedo carrying Nells in the second which sank Prince of Wales. The 3rd attack was made by G4Ms carrying torpedoes which sank Repulse. In both cases, Brewsters were within range and I don't know off the top o'my head if escort fighters accompanying the bombers to the ships (not saying there weren't, just didn't bother to look it up).

The loss of PoW and Repulse was also due to several other factors - no capital ship had been lost to aircraft on the open sea up until that time, and Admiral Phillips wasn't overly concerned since he felt he was operating outside of the range of Japanese aircraft. The British raids on Taranto had been made against anchored targets, Pearl Harbor had happened only 3 days earlier (and the effects of that attack hadn't been fully studied or even acknowledged). PoW had 4 confirmed torpedo hits, Repulse 2 confirmed and 2 probable. The loss of both can also be attributed to their designs - Repulse never received her anti-torpedo blisters (Renown, her sister had), and PoW took a torpedo at her most weak spot, the prop shaft opening. In fact, they figured the prop shaft sheared and actually tore the hull the open, flooding multiple compartments. In addition, the flooding of the prop shaft tunnel caused a list, flooded the engine room, resulting in a loss of power. That meant her pumps, comm, fire control, etc., were all either disabled or drastically reduced.

Much like the torpedo to Bismarck's rudder, this single torpedo hit caused the ultimate loss of the ship.

Kevin Denlay from Project 74 did an extensive survey of both wrecks and published a fascinating PDF online....

http://www.explorers.org/flag_reports/Flag_118_-_Kevin_Denlay_-_Update.pdf

J

[hlbly]

The loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse was a textbook example of airpower dominating surface combatants. It was a 3-phase operation, high altitude bombers (Nells) in the first wave, followed by torpedo carrying Nells in the second which sank Prince of Wales. The 3rd attack was made by G4Ms carrying torpedoes which sank Repulse. In both cases, Brewsters were within range and I don't know off the top o'my head if escort fighters accompanying the bombers to the ships (not saying there weren't, just didn't bother to look it up).

The loss of PoW and Repulse was also due to several other factors - no capital ship had been lost to aircraft on the open sea up until that time, and Admiral Phillips wasn't overly concerned since he felt he was operating outside of the range of Japanese aircraft. The British raids on Taranto had been made against anchored targets, Pearl Harbor had happened only 3 days earlier (and the effects of that attack hadn't been fully studied or even acknowledged). PoW had 4 confirmed torpedo hits, Repulse 2 confirmed and 2 probable. The loss of both can also be attributed to their designs - Repulse never received her anti-torpedo blisters (Renown, her sister had), and PoW took a torpedo at her most weak spot, the prop shaft opening. In fact, they figured the prop shaft sheared and actually tore the hull the open, flooding multiple compartments. In addition, the flooding of the prop shaft tunnel caused a list, flooded the engine room, resulting in a loss of power. That meant her pumps, comm, fire control, etc., were all either disabled or drastically reduced.

Much like the torpedo to Bismarck's rudder, this single torpedo hit caused the ultimate loss of the ship.

Kevin Denlay from Project 74 did an extensive survey of both wrecks and published a fascinating PDF online....

http://www.explorers.org/flag_reports/Flag_118_-_Kevin_Denlay_-_Update.pdf

J

I think there wasb one other major factor in the loss of these 2 ships . Prewar AA armament .

[JHerne]

I think there wasb one other major factor in the loss of these 2 ships . Prewar AA armament .

I agree - but I think that everyone had that issue early on. If anything, I believe the RN was more aware of the problem than any other combatant nation at the time, probably on parallel with the Kreigsmarine. This comes simply as a result of more operational experience up to that point.

The loss of PoW and Repulse, like the losses of other major ships, can be attributed primarily to not one single thing going terribly wrong, but a combination of little things that individually weren't huge issues.

The Titanic and her partial bulkheads and weak rivets, the Shinano and her lack of watertight doors and venting, the Bismarck and her jammed rudder, the Indianapolis and the fact they she was in a low-alert state, the Lusitania and her coal dust triggering secondary explosions, etc... Had circumstance taken away any one of these variables, the ship might have survived, or the outcome of the loss of life would have been less had the ship remained afloat for a longer period of time...