However these small destroyers would be pretty chanceless against something like a Fletcher class, even the later destroys such as Öland class was still very much inferior to the Fletcher class and beyond.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think the way the sea region is divided to favor Finland, Sweden and, to a lesser extend, the Baltic countries does adequately cover that those countries have a geographical advantage. You still have to build something substantial to act as the fleet in being though.
Finnish naval defence was based on a strong network of coastal guns, minefields and ships hiding among the tens of thousands of archipelagos. The enemy would be funneled into killzones by area denial, and behind every little islet a squadron of torpedo boats might be lying in wait, ready to pounce. Having a ship that is better on the high seas doesn't help in such a scenario.
Can't speak for Sweden with such certainty but I think it was somewhat similar, with more capacity for engagements further out to sea.
I suggest you read up on the naval war in the Gulf of Finland in 1941-44. It really can't be represented at all. All the little naval terrain modifiers do is make sinking the fleets of minors in the Baltic Sea take a few days longer than it did pre-MtG.
Would not have any chance against something like a serious US invasion anyway. The Swedish navy went with heavier destroyers over time as the lighter ones was probably seen as obsolete.
That's why we have posted this thread first and the guide in the suggestions subforum later.
We have added some more things to the guide since March 22.
Perhaps we should re-post the final version somewhere else?
This is called green-water navy (coastal ships, can't be used far from home bases). Currently the game represents only blue-water navies (ocean going ships).
A problem to represent small crafts (MTB, gunboats etc) is that unlike larger ships they can act as a brown-water navy (riverine) as well (like the US Yangtze patrol).
In order to represent such ships, major rivers and lakes would need to become navigable for these crafts but NOT for major warships.
Invading Europe from an unsinkable aircraft carrier a few dozen km away with supplies ready to be ashore in a moment's notice is one thing. Invading a remote, heavily defended and difficult to navigate coastline without air cover is a completely different ball game.
Realistically they'd at least need to take Sweden or Estonia first.
Yes but if Germany can achieve what they did in ww2, a country with like 4+ times the production, a much more powerful navy with much more knowledge about using it, a better army and a better airforce. USA basically outdid Germany in every area and would not have much issues to military conquer the Scandinavian countries if it really wanted to.
If USA wanted to it could have defeated the Soviet union in 1945 by itself to get an idea what it had the capabilities to do.
Yes it may be costly but thats is expected.
Oh I'm sure the US was economically capable of churning out enough men and materiel to single-handedly conquer most of Europe, if its population turned into a horde of mindless drones willing to obey their master's every order. Heck, they likely could've occupied Soviet Russia in such a scenario. But obviously such measuring contests are pointless when they are rendered null and void by geopolitics, and even something as simple as domestic politics (*cough* Vietnam *cough*).
Both of you are kinda right.
The closest historical comparison would be Germany invading Norway. The KM succeded but lost a CA (Blücher), 2 CL, 10 DD (the latter sunk by the Royal navy at Narvik) and some transport ships.
Most likely
- the US Navy would certainly have been capable to invade any of the Baltic or Scandinavian countries if this was their objective.
- That country's coastal defense forces could have sunk a few American ships, but the numbers the US had were overwhelming.
- keeping these countries occupied and pacified afterwards would be different issue that has nothing to do with their navy. Historically, this was the problem the US military had in Vietnam (and more recently Afghanistan and Iraq), NOT the initial invasion of the country. In the game this is represented by resistance and copmliance.
Thing is, invading Norway was a walk in the park compared to what a naval invasion of Finland would've been like; there's a reason the Russians never tried a large-scale naval invasion of the country despite her very long coastline. I've covered this relatively recently, both in Finnish and English. Tomorrow I can see if I can find some of my posts on the topic in English.
Have you looked at the ships and compared them, sweden in ww2 did not have any destroyers comparable to the Fletcher class, Argubly only Halland class was better than a Fletcher class but that is in the 50s and not comparable to the destroyers sweden had in ww2.
Also Sweden basically had no radars during ww2 which would also be a disadvantage not to even speak about how poor state the airforce was in.
Whether or not the USN could invade Finland effectively is less-important than whether or not the USSR or Germany could, without a significant naval buildup. Finland was gearing up to fight a pair of navies that had stagnated after WWI, and although better-equipped in both cases (by far), neither fleet in 1936 was really likely to succeed in an attack without heavier losses than they would be willing to sustain.
The Norwegian campaign, for instance, left most of Germany's fleet wrecked despite a significant rearmament period between 1936 and 1939, as its 2 battleships were damaged, and most of its cruisers were damaged or sunk. Germany only had 5 heavy cruisers during this attack, and it left 1 sunk and 2 crippled. Similarly, losing 2 CLs represented 40% of Germany's light cruiser forces (besides utility craft like the Bremse's, or auxiliary cruisers).
Small torpedo boat destroyers and gunboats tended to be mainly-constrained by their lack of range (both in terms of actual range, and their inability to operate effectively in deep water); however, they were far cheaper than the ships they were designed to fight, with even a comparably-armed destroyer designed for blue-water fighting weighing at least twice as much as a coastal variant (which could be slower and shallower-draft).
The Fletcher-class, at 2,000+ tons, is considerably-more expensive than building even 5 400-ton torpedo boats, and though it would beat 5 of those ships under normal circumstances it would be less-likely to solo-defeat a capital ship (which 5 torpedo boats might be able to do effectively). Thus, a minor navy is incentivized to go for cheaper coastal defense craft rather than big, fast, expensive ocean-going ships with multirole capabilities that the major navies would want.
The Norwegian campaign, for instance, left most of Germany's fleet wrecked despite a significant rearmament period between 1936 and 1939, as its 2 battleships were damaged, and most of its cruisers were damaged or sunk. Germany only had 5 heavy cruisers during this attack, and it left 1 sunk and 2 crippled. Similarly, losing 2 CLs represented 40% of Germany's light cruiser forces (besides utility craft like the Bremse's, or auxiliary cruisers).
Small torpedo boat destroyers and gunboats tended to be mainly-constrained by their lack of range (both in terms of actual range, and their inability to operate effectively in deep water); however, they were far cheaper than the ships they were designed to fight, with even a comparably-armed destroyer designed for blue-water fighting weighing at least twice as much as a coastal variant (which could be slower and shallower-draft).
The Fletcher-class, at 2,000+ tons, is considerably-more expensive than building even 5 400-ton torpedo boats, and though it would beat 5 of those ships under normal circumstances it would be less-likely to solo-defeat a capital ship (which 5 torpedo boats might be able to do effectively). Thus, a minor navy is incentivized to go for cheaper coastal defense craft rather than big, fast, expensive ocean-going ships with multirole capabilities that the major navies would want.
Germany and Soviet union also lacked much experience with amphibious assaults, it took some tries Before the allied reached the operation overlord level of sophistication and effectivness.
I have compared them and Öland Class had longer range and higher rate of fire on their guns, meaning that my money is on Öland if it had to fight a Fletcher Class ship. Sweden did have Radars during WW2. And what does the airforce have to do with it even? You seem to be under the missconception that just because it is made in US it must have been the best.
Öland class is lighter and have 4 main guns vs 5 for the Fletcher (who also fire a heavier Shell) and the Fletcher should also be faster as well exist in much greater numbers and was available in early 40s vs late 40s for the Öland class and the Fletcher class at that Point was not the most powerful destroyer US had access to. For radar, US had access to centimetric radar while the best radar sweden had access to after the war would be imported British ones. Also I think US ships had more sophisticated fire Control systems than sweden could build on their own.
So I think something like this:
- Öland Advantages: More modern guns, need less crew and lighter and carry mines
- Fletcher Advantages: Heavier, battle proven design, good guns, excellent soft factors such as radar and fire Control, better AA with access to proximity fuse, faster and greater operational range.
For France, we can add that the first Dunkerque class ship should be practically finished in 1936 (launched October 1935, into service May 1937), while in the game it is barely started.
Last edited:
Yea, Fletcher's were not notably sea worthy though, being a flush decker, and were restricted from the much rougher Atlantic. It was only marginally heavier then the Orland 1880-2250 empty/load vs 2050/2500).
Orland while having smaller main guns, had a higher rate of fire...which is not necessarily an advantage, but does mitigate it using a smaller caliber. But when one considers neither gun were purposed for going toe to toe with capitals, the minor difference in caliber is largely negligible against targets they were designed for) when you add in increase fire rate. However, the Fletcher's had 5 main's compared to the orland's 4. In this, i think Fletcher's at least equal, if not gain an advantage over the Orland's fire rate by the fact the Fletcher had more guns with which to fire (ok, only one more).
Fletcher's had 10 tubes compared to Orland's 8. seeing how DD's main armament back then was often it's torpedos, that does give the Fletcher an advantage...until you consider the state of US torpedoes through most of war.
Orland had a reinforced double hull, while Fletchers relied on the flush deck design for strength. Not really going to get into a debate about which one is would be better, dont really know. armor can be a tricky subject with lots variables, just pointing out the difference here that could give one an advantage over the other in a gun battle.
Im an American, Im biased, Fletcher was better...for what it needed to do...which was long patrols in the relatively calm Pacific and carry insane amounts of AA, and needing to keep up with the newer and faster CV's (giving up some armor for that). It was not well suited for what the Orland was purposed to do, which was to patrol the extremely rough north seas and shallow brown water shorelines of the Baltic against subs and light surface vessels, and take a beating while doing it.
In that sense it's comparing apples and oranges. In a head to head fight, it becomes less clear. The Fletcher, despite your opinions, does not have a clear advantage. It has a marginal advantage that could easily be overcome by positioning, terrain, and overwhelming fire, and more reliable torpedoes.
For whatever reason (and not one I agree with, this is just what I've heard, and is generally consistent with the start-of-game builds, although I think more inconsistencies were introduced with MtG), the current design only puts ships into the production only after they're launched, so the 20 per cent completion reflections the portion of the time between Oct 1935 and May 1937. I agree it should be more like 69 per cent complete, but to make the OOB's consistent, making this change would require significant changes to pretty much all the OOBs of major naval nations (which is what I did in my pre-MtG naval mod, and fate permitting will again in the distant, darkest future).
You are right that the caliber doesn't matter much as the diffrence in shell weight was 23.5kg vs 25kg, a mere 6% diffrence. You are wrong on rate of fire though, Fletcher had a rate of fire of 12-15 rpm for each gun totaling 60-75 rpm, with Öland having 20 for each gun getting 80 total shots per minute, a slight advantage. But the main diffrence is that Öland had 20% longer range, wich matters quite a lot for wich tin can nails the other first.