Thoughts on naval combat after reading Hastings Operation Pedestal

[LordWahu]

1. You said there were discussions about adding naval bombardment to ships' roles. Bombardment is a specific term in the context of HOI4 and ships are ALREADY able to do it.
2. Historical digressions are good but they have zero meaning without mapping them onto HOI4 model. The closest I may think of to what you mentioned is giving ships a full range of air missions -- strat bombing, logi- and port-strikes. IMHO it's a kinda questionnable use of dev resources because it's the same as air just you invest a hell of research and IC and then you're left with useless floating things after your combat moves one tile away from coast.

1) Bombardment is a word outside of HoI4, and the correct nomenclature here. Just because something using the word bombardment exists in game does not mean that the concept as it is supposed to exist is in game
2) What you just described is the case right now. All naval investment is useless after the one doomstack battle. And the one doomstack battle happens because there's nothing else to do with the ships. Ships able to do operations other than just sink other ships are exactly what is needed. The ability to damage ports, forts, railroads, airbases, and supply depots would do just that

 

[PK_AZ]

I wouldn't say so, displacement is ever growing but except exotic Russian fleet ships the only 100% proof cruisers are Ticos and Type 055. Standard displacement range for the latest 100% DDs are 7-9K tons except for the latest flights of Arleigh Burke (close to 10K) and some Japanese large DDs (10K).

To put it into context, WW2 Cleveland-class cruiser had displacement of 11.744 tonnes, while Fletcher-class destroyer had 2100 tonnes. Not only are Burkes closer to WW2 cruisers than WW2 destroyers - Burkes are big guys after all - but so is also true for your 7-9k latest destroyer. I believe we can intuitively say that ship with displacement budget of 7k is quite different beast that the one with 2.1k.
What I want to say, I don't think it makes much sense, to compare ships built in different times, in era where 40 years of technological development is enough to create and deprecate three generations of equipment, who formally don't even belong to the same class (guided missile destroyers [DDGs] versus destroyers [DDs]). Not more than comparing River-class frigate to HMS Warrior of 1860.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

1) Bombardment is a word outside of HoI4, and the correct nomenclature here. Just because something using the word bombardment exists in game does not mean that the concept as it is supposed to exist is in game

Naval missions - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

The ability to damage ports, forts, railroads, airbases, and supply depots would do just that

Let's see if dev will take on the job of reworking Navy. I'd be actually very glad if they do. IMHO last time something fundamental was added to the game that made it more interesting as a wargame was supply. That was 3.5 years ago and since that time HOI4 hasn't had any major improvement as a wargame IMHO. MIOs, research facilities, the Market do make HOI4 a better research or trading simulator but they're minor for a wargame.

 

[Cornutus]

The Germans had no landing craft and no capacity to sustain an overseas invasion such as Sea Lion. Even if they were lucky enough to land a small force, they would be isolated and out of supplies and ammunition within days. Britain was by no means defenseless,

My understanding is the British Army lost almost all of its equipment in the Battle of France (excluding troops in the Mediterranean, and other overseas colonies). The evacuation from Dunkirk forced them to leave behind all of their artillery and tractors.

It would have likely been somewhat similar to a "Mega-Crete 1941" campaign, where the British army evacuated from Greece was overrun by German paratroopers with nothing but pistols (German paratroopers landed with main armament separate of operators).

and it is almost definite that in the unlikely event of a successful crossing, Germany would have been pushed back to the sea.

Depends on what we're talking about. In 1940 they definitely did not, but due to weather/hydrology conditions, a naval invasion in Fall of 1940 was unlikely anyways.

As to capacity, they managed to pull of Norway 1940 in even worse conditions.

Again, we have Normandy 1944 as "Reverse Sea-Lion". Everything what you're saying can be applied to that operation, and yet the Allies succeeded (despite even landing in a coastally fortified area).

Weather was certainly a factor, but Germany was never anywhere close to having the material and logistical infrastructure to support an invasion of the UK. Sneaking two raiders through the channel and landing an invasion force are not equivalent tasks.

Agreed that it's not an equivalent task.

But did the Germans ever have anywhere near the material and logistical infrastructure to perform any of their operations? Such as the Africa Campaign?

Did the Japanese have the material and logistical infrastructure for their Guadalcanal campaign?

Yet somehow there was some pretty big fighting.

Germans supplied Norway the entire war, with zero issue. Why the UK would be such a problem, I don't understand.

As for the Kriegsmarine's long-term prospects, the various plans and contingencies for a later war could indeed have resulted in a stronger Germany navy (like war starting in 1942). But the Royal Navy was by no means idle, and British shipbuilding capacity far exceeded German shipbuilding, to say nothing of American shipbuilding which by the end of the war would exceed both combined. Had the war been delayed and Germany built more ships, the UK would have had more time to finish even more ships and be even more prepared. The Germans learned this the hard way in the First War and were foolish to even attempt to compete with an island nation for whom the navy was the senior service valued above all else.

It's not a "I have more ships" competition.

Germans had the advantage that they were invulnerable to the British navy and could choose where to apply their force: raiding in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Naval invading the British Isles or something else. The British had to protect against all of these options and account for potential reaction delays.

After all, we can simply check how many battleships the Germans tied down, when they were desperately needed in the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean and the Pacific.

Britain's shipbuilding slowed during the interwar period because of the political expedience of budget cuts. Had Germany appeared to be a more serious threat, the British government would have quickly cast aside any misgivings to maintain the naval balance of power.

There is simply no plausible scenario where the German navy comes out on top.

Arguable.

It's not just about shipbuilding capacity, but also "forces/tasks". The Kriegsmarine had way less tasks than the Royal Navy, which had to spread out between the Pacific, Mediterranean, Atlantic, Indian and North Sea. Half of the British Navy had to stick by the Home Isles and be based in Scapa Flow.

Even the few outright second rate (you can't call Scharnhorst and Gneisenau modern battleships for 1940) ships they had managed to successfully interdict British shipping lanes repeatedly.

Somehow Germany launched the Norway naval invasion, landed navally (besides paradrops) at Crete and the British navy couldn't stop them. Not only that, from 1940 to 1945, they had no issue supplying Norway by sea. Why they would suddenly not be able to supply a force in the UK from French ports from a shorter distance, I have trouble understanding.

 

[Cornutus]

1) Bombardment is a word outside of HoI4, and the correct nomenclature here. Just because something using the word bombardment exists in game does not mean that the concept as it is supposed to exist is in game
2) What you just described is the case right now. All naval investment is useless after the one doomstack battle. And the one doomstack battle happens because there's nothing else to do with the ships. Ships able to do operations other than just sink other ships are exactly what is needed. The ability to damage ports, forts, railroads, airbases, and supply depots would do just that

2) (Welcome to Kaiser Wilhelm's world)

Do we have examples of successful naval bombardment outside the HOi4 bombardment mechanic?

I don't think so. Guadalcanal is actually a contra-point, rather than a pro-point.

 

[LordWahu]

2) (Welcome to Kaiser Wilhelm's world)

Do we have examples of successful naval bombardment outside the HOi4 bombardment mechanic?

I don't think so. Guadalcanal is actually a contra-point, rather than a pro-point.

Malta is the big one, but there were also a slew of operations pre-Avalanche and Overlord. Not to mention the wrecking of the Japanese coastline, and several amusing attacks by the Japanese on the US West Coast that didn't do much because of faulty intelligence. And that's not even counting all the carrier based operations that the US and Japan loved to do

Guadalcanal isn't a contra point because they failed to destroy the airfield. It's a pro point because they tried and were driven off before they could do sufficient damage

 

[Caeric]

You don't need to retell how Fleet Treaties worked, just decide if light cruisers existed during WWI or they were invented after. You can't have it both ways

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ww1/royal-navy-1914.php "136 Cruisers -- The term encompassed cruisers (thee rates), armoured cruisers, protected cruisers, and scout/light cruisers."

1. The first of "naval treaties after WWI" is Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. It specifically excludes ALL cruisers from capital ship category. You probably mix most well know Second London Treaty terminology with what really was signed after WWI.
2. Light cruisers are excluded from capital ship category even in Second London Naval Treaty so they can't be "smaller, faster" of the latter.
3. Again CLs existed long before all of these treaties.

IMHO you fundamentally misunderstands the roles of different classes of ships. All cruisers had their own niche (at least before BCs when it was somewhat blurred with fast BBs) and CLs could have never ever dreamed of "being closer to BBs".

IMHO you misunderstand CL role in the game as well. The main role of CLs is to decimate enemy DDs screen, exactly what they were meant to do IRL as well (as @Kanitatlan said). Why use CLs as a pure screen if you can get the same thing in DD for a fraction of the cost?

What decades? CGN Long Beach was designed during WWII times?

Maybe you need to go read up some more if you're conflating armored cruisers and protected cruisers with ww2 cruisers.

The only arbitrary difference between a heavy cruiser and light cruiser is gun caliber. Before the treaties they were both just referred to as cruisers. You have "heavy" cruisers like the French Duqesne with a mere 30mm magazine armor box.

The class distinction does very little to adequately describe the actual combat capability of each vessel.

A 10,000t light cruiser is every bit as much of a large combat vessel as a Treaty heavy cruiser and practically as dangerous due to a higher volume of fire.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Maybe you need to go read up some more if you're conflating armored cruisers and protected cruisers with ww2 cruisers.

The class distinction does very little to adequately describe the actual combat capability of each vessel.

Your righteous indignation is misplaced. If you missed, we were discussing a simple question: if such a class / rating of ships as light cruisers existed before / during WWI. I believed I showed RN did have them as such. How combat capable they were has nothing to do with it.

 

[Caeric]

Your righteous indignation is misplaced. If you missed, we were discussing a simple question: if such a class / rating of ships as light cruisers existed before / during WWI. I believed I showed RN did have them as such. How combat capable they were has nothing to do with it.

Yes the very first modern'ish cruisers were designed at the tail end of WWI but the distinction between light and heavy still didn't exist, try again

The only distinguishing feature between the Hawkins class "heavy" cruiser and an Emerald class "light" cruiser is the gun caliber

Simply put the designations are retroactive, similar to how pre-dreadnoughts were simply called battleships before Dreadnought caused the distinction to be needed.

Gee, it's almost as if the distinction was completely arbitrary in the first place.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

The only distinguishing feature between the Hawkins class "heavy" cruiser and an Emerald class "light" cruiser is the gun caliber

What you call "the only distinction" is the one of really only two existing in naval treaties of the time.

Yes the very first modern'ish cruisers were designed at the tail end of WWI but the distinction between light and heavy still didn't exist, try again

Were there third rate / light cruisers in RN that were neither armored cruisers nor protected cruisers that were between those two?

 

[Caeric]

What you call "the only distinction" is the one of really only two existing in naval treaties of the time.


Were there third rate / light cruisers in RN that were neither armored cruisers nor protected cruisers that were between those two?

They're not even related. The modern cruiser evolved from the protected cruiser with elements of the armored cruiser, hence leading to the slightly confusing designation of "light armored cruiser" they gave the C-class, hence leading to the shortening to just "light cruiser" which applied to practically every modern cruiser class until the Washington treaty and the distinction only existed in relation to the obsolete armored and protected cruisers still steaming around

Doesn't change the fact that a cruiser is a cruiser no matter what its gun caliber is.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Were there third rate / light cruisers in RN that were neither armored cruisers nor protected cruisers that were between those two?

@Caeric can't you answer this very simple question: did RN used three rates for cruisers -- armored, protected and the smallest third rate / light cruiser?

 

[Caeric]

@Caeric can't you answer this very simple question: did RN used three rates for cruisers -- armored, protected and the smallest third rate / light cruiser?

The third rate was scout cruiser and has nothing to do with WW2 or WW2 era cruiser designations.

Unless you're talking about third rate protected cruisers.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

has nothing to do with WW2 or WW2 era cruiser designations.

Your logic is since British tanks of WWI had MG-only variants those variants should not have been called tanks even in those times because now no one would call an armoured war machine a tank if it does not have a gun.

 

[Caeric]

Your logic is since British tanks of WWI had MG-only variants those variants should not have been called tanks even in those times because now no one would call an armoured war machine a tank if it does not have a gun.

What are you even on about? There is no evolutionary link between the scout cruisers of WWI and WW2 cruisers, they were an evolutionary dead end. You can't even give me a concrete example of what class of cruiser you're refering to other than shifting your goalposts.

My point was that arbitrarily defining a cruiser as either a screen or a capital ship is pointless when they are neither, they're cruisers. Cruisers do cruiser things, they're the swiss-army-knife of naval vessels. They don't have any different purposes unless specifically designed for a specialist role. A light cruiser is no more built to blow up screens as you claimed than a heavy cruiser is.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

What are you even on about?

I'm not onto anything, that part of the discussion finished yesterday, the talk moved to other things with tens of posts written afterwards. Let's stop it here.

 

[PK_AZ]

The only arbitrary difference between a heavy cruiser and light cruiser is gun caliber. Before the treaties they were both just referred to as cruisers. You have "heavy" cruisers like the French Duqesne with a mere 30mm magazine armor box.

Actually, I don't think classes of 'light' and 'heavy' cruisers were ever defined in any naval treaty. First London Naval Treaty calls them "cruisers', and then divide into two sub-categories: A (with guns over 155mm) and B (without). Second London Naval Treaty goes even further, calling them (and destroyers!) 'light surface vessels' (and I would like to put emphasis on >light< part), and then dividing into sub-categories A, B (analogous to previous ones) and C.

 

[Caeric]

Actually, I don't think classes of 'light' and 'heavy' cruisers were ever defined in any naval treaty. First London Naval Treaty calls them "cruisers', and then divide into two sub-categories: A (with guns over 155mm) and B (without). Second London Naval Treaty goes even further, calling them (and destroyers!) 'light surface vessels' (and I would like to put emphasis on >light< part), and then dividing into sub-categories A, B (analogous to previous ones) and C.

You might be right about that. Either case, the distinction is mostly legalese The heavy cruiser title was just added retroactively since prior ships like the Hawkins or Pensacola-class had already been classified as light cruisers. A heavy cruiser has a bit of an advantage at longer ranges due to more powerful guns, but that's about it. Cruisers have more in common with other cruisers of a similar weight class than what gun class they carry. A Town-class light cruiser has more in common with a County-class heavy cruiser than a sub-6000t Arethusa-class light cruiser.

Hence why I think cruisers deserve their own designation, battle-line, gun weight class rather than be arbitrarily split between screens and capital ships when they served as both escorts or flagships, scouts, lone raiders or anything else depending on circumstances.

 

[Le Vengur]

There should really be more room for size and strength variations as well. A 4500-ton C-class and a 18000-ton Hipper are vastly different ships (though the same distinction can just as easily be made for a 18000-ton Espana versus your choice of 45000-ton BB).

The hull and engine costs should logically have a closer connection to the size and number of modules fitted. Every increase in firepower, protection or mobility should have more significant costs, but equally be possible to compensate for.

No more choosing between whether you want fast ships or well protected ships.

Though escorts would really benefit from using a separate system, manually designing and distributing them is a a unneccesary chore better left to mods.

 

[Caeric]

There should really be more room for size and strength variations as well. A 4500-ton C-class and a 18000-ton Hipper are vastly different ships (though the same distinction can just as easily be made for a 18000-ton Espana versus your choice of 45000-ton BB).

The hull and engine costs should logically have a closer connection to the size and number of modules fitted. Every increase in firepower, protection or mobility should have more significant costs, but equally be possible to compensate for.

No more choosing between whether you want fast ships or well protected ships.

Though escorts would really benefit from using a separate system, manually designing and distributing them is a a unneccesary chore better left to mods.

I'd opt for using post-treaty cruisers like Baltimore-class as the example though since the Hippers are just a bloated mess not even more capable than a treaty limited heavy cruiser.

For an 18000t cruiser they really ought to have more to show from the firepower/speed/armor triangle.