This (and two similar threads for 1939 and 1941) will be the place to comment on my and GS_Guderian's new naval OoBs for the 1936 scenario in vanilla HoI. If you have comments, questions, corrections, ideas, complaints or praising regarding our new 1936 Naval OoBs, please post them here and not in the 1936 Naval OoB thread. We will try to answer any relevant post here.
OK, as promised, I've had a look at what you've done.
Before I comment specifically on the OOB I’d like to make a couple of more general comments. For very much the greatest part I think what Adler and Guderian have done is very good, but I think some improvements can still be made.
First, classifications
BATTLESHIPS
--------------
The changes in 1.05c have solved the problem of the pre-dreadnoughts by significantly increasing the difference between BB types 0 &1. Let’s have a look at what the types now seem to represent.
Adler and Guderian have stated they are using BB categories 0, 1, 2 and 3 as follows
BB0 – pre-dreadnoughts and coast defence battleship
BB1 – dreadnoughts, super-dreadnoughts and 30’s BC’s
BB2 – Modern battleships
BB3 – the most advanced battleships
They appear to consider type 4 to represent a level of design not historically achieved.
I’m not sure what the division between types 2 and 3 is intended to be. Note that, in the 1939 scenario all major powers (with the exception of the USSR and China) can build type 3 BBs.
I’m assuming that’s what ADLER AND GUDERIAN intend is something like
Type 2 classes
Nelson, King George V, Bismarck, Littorio, North Carolina, South Dakota, Richelieu, Iowa
Type 3 classes
Lion, Type H, Montana, Yamato
Anyway, assuming I’m right, then I see some problems with this.
It doesn’t give enough distinction between the types listed above and the dreadnoughts which they have classified under type 1. Remember that the stats are now
BB1 seattack 14, seadefence 15
BB2 seattack 17, seadefence 15
Putting the dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts together ignores the significant differences in capabilities between some of these classes. Consider the following examples:
Espana class (Spain)
Displacement 15,500 t
Speed 19.5 knots
Armament 8x12”, 20x4”
Belt: 8”
Minas Gerais (Brazil)
Displacement 19,200 t
Speed 21 knots
Armament 12x12”,22x4.7”
Belt: 9”
Courbet Class (France)
Displacement 22,000 t
Speed 20 knots
Armament 12x12”, 22x5.5”
Belt: 11.75”
New Mexico Class (US)
Displacement 33,300 t
Speed 21 knots
Armament 12x14”, 14x5”
Belt: 14”
Maryland Class (US)
Displacement 35,000 t
Speed 20.5 knots
Armament 8x16”, 12x5”
Belt: 14”
Nagato class (Japan)
Displacement 39,100 t
Speed 25 knots
Armament 8x16”, 18x5.5”
Belt: 11.8”
Queen Elizabeth class (England)
Displacement 36,000 t
Speed 23.5 knots
Armament 8x15”,8x6”
Belt: 13”
While these are probably the extreme examples I think they show the problem.
I also think type 4 should not be ignored – if it is not the planned, but usually never built, biggest ships, then what is it?
I think all five types (0-4) should be used, as follows
BB0 Pre-dreadnoughts and coast defence battleships
BB1 dreadnoughts
BB2 super-dreadnoughts, modern battlecruisers
BB3 ships designed to incorporate WW1 lessons
BB4 2nd generation modern ships
Super-dreadnoughts are ships not incorporating design changes from WW1 experience, of at least 30,000 tons displacement and main gun caliber at least 14”
So what Adler and Guderain have as types 2 and 3 I have as types 3 and 4.
This classification allows the great powers to build their King George Vs, Bismarcks, etc in 1939 but requires extra research to do better. It doesn’t require any major alteration to the battleship tech allocation in 1.05c. It puts a (relatively minor) distinction between the dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts, but one that is in terms of attack value, which is propably correct. It puts a much greater distinction between those ships designed with knowledge of WW1 experience and those without, which is again correct.
CRUISERS
----------
While Adler and Guderian make a distinction for cruisers based on light and heavy, which is reasonable, they seem to base this on armament caliber only, ignoring number of guns and tonnage, which are just as relevant in determining what is and isn’t a heavy cruiser.
I would propose the following:
CA0 Old (pre- and ww1) cruisers (light, heavy and armoured) and old coast defence ships
CA1 Light cruisers (less than 12x6” guns or 8x8”guns or similar), modern coast defence ships
CA2 pre-ww2 and early war heavy cruisers
CA3 late war heavy cruisers
Not that much difference really. The differences, and my reasons, are as follows
The de-rating of old armoured, heavy and coast defence ships to type 0. These ships were two decades or more older than modern light cruisers. Their armour scheme and water tight protection were usually markedly inferior, they were much slower and their armament quality and layout was inferior.
The de-rating of modern coast defence ships to type 1. These ships usually were not comparable to modern heavy cruisers. Consider the following
Sri Ayuthia (Siam/Thialand)
Displacement 2265t, speed 15.5 knots, armament 4x8”
This could not be considered superior to a modern light cruiser or, given the present ratings, to the Swedish coast defence battleships.
The different definition of heavy and light. Armament caliber does not tell the whole story. Rating the York and Exeter as superior fighting vessels to the later British ships armed with 12x6” simply isn’t accurate. There are other examples.
Both Adler and Guderian’s proposal and mine means that most major powers should have the capability of building type 2 cruisers in ’36, or ’39 at the latest. Currently only Japan and the UK can do this by ’39. The techs need to be updated to reflect the ships in the OOB. We also may need a bit more thought about whether the Japanese and UK should be able to build type 3 cruisers in ’39.
DESTROYERS
I would suggest the following
DD0 ww1 destroyers
DD1 pre-ww2 destroyers
DD2 early war destroyers (Must have at least 4x120mm DP, 6xTT, 35 knots, 2300 ton ton displacement)
DD3 late war destroyers (as DD2, but at least 3000t full displacement)
Less changes here. I don’t think it’s worth worrying about separately rating the destroyer leaders. There weren’t very many of them and they would force extra technology to be given to countries, which would then proceed to build destroyer fleets of destroyer leaders – not very historical. I think the fast light cruisers are taken care of by my changes to the cruiser classifications.
CARRIERS
----------
Essentially I agree with the classification proposed with Adler and Guderian. My only qualification is that you have to be careful to use operational maximum limits on number of planes carried when classifying a ship.
AVAILABILITY
--------------
A ship (or multi-ship unit) should only be put in the OOB if there is no other way to get it ready in time to meet the hostorical situation. HoI usues much shorter build times for ships then is historically realistic, fior example about 2 years for BB's rather than the hiostorical 4-6. I'm guessing this was done to allow more player flexiblility. What it does mean is that some ships which were actually building don't need to be put in the build queue. they can be ordered by the player after the scenario begins and still complete at the historical time.
One final point is the use of launch date versus completion date.
Using launch date is not sustainable for larger vessels. Capital ships, and even cruisers were launched without most of their equipment – including their armament (see the contemporary newsreel footage of the launching of the Bismarck and various British ships). There is no way in which these ships could be considered battle ready in any sense upon launching. The organisation rising from 0 is better considered to represent the bringing of the crew to combat readiness, not the actual completion of the ship.
Using launch date would require counting a number of ships that were never combat capable to be listed as functioning units (such as the Graf Zeppelin, launched 8 December 1938, Impero, launched 15 November 1939 and a number of Japanese carriers) or a number of units to be considered combat capable well before they actually were (for example the Hiyo and Junyo, launched mid-1941, completed mid-1942 or Roma, launched 9-6-40, completed 14-6-1942). It can be seen from these dates (and I can give many other examples) that considering the organisation accrual to represent the difference between launch and completion does not work.
As another example consider two elements of the Bismarck’s only cruise (May 1941). First she was accompanied by the Prinz Eugen, not the Tirpitz, as the later was not ready. Considering the Tirpitz’s launch (1 April 1939) and completion dates (25 February 1941) using the launch date will not represent this properly. Second, it is well known that the poor performance of the Prince of Wales was due to her not being properly combat ready. Again her dates (launched 3 September 1939, completed 31 March 1941) show that it is necessary to take the completion date, not the launch date, as the time the ship arrives.
OK, next will come my first OOB suggestions, Argentina to Italy
Michael
