Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Yet another WW2 could Germany have won if... thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Graf Zeppelin said:
So carriers are not viable ?

Princeton got sunk by a lone LBA crashing into its deck.
Click to expand...

They certainly become a dicier investment. But for the purpose of controlling the sea nothing else was proving as effective.

But yeah, there is a reason navies gravitate towards less large ships now. If anything weapon developments continue to reinforce this lesson.

Graf Zeppelin said:
Indeed, the torpedo boat alread challenged the battleship.

What this poster does not get is that there are gradual differences between the Queen of the Seas and being obsolete.
Click to expand...

Early torpedoes were very inaccurate and prone to mechanical failure, and a torpedo boat still had to move on the surface and get in range. This at a time when surface action between warships was the only method of combat. Which is why I'd put the battleship's obsolescence point around the interwar period with a few early alarms in the first world war. The sub, the mine, the aircraft all simple deterrents to the usefulness of the battleship.

For ships intended to engage other surface combatants and decisively establish naval supremacy pretty much none ever did. They just ran into mines, were scuttled, sunk by U-boats or taken down by aircraft. Hence the relegation to c&c and amphibious support prior to decommission.

So much for all this.

naval-race-1909-inline2.jpg



But for sure it's not the first or last time nations obsess over something that ends up being a waste.
 
The-Doc said:
They certainly become a dicier investment. But for the purpose of controlling the sea nothing else was proving as effective.

But yeah, there is a reason navies gravitate towards less large ships now. If anything weapon developments continue to reinforce this lesson.

Early torpedoes were very inaccurate and prone to mechanical failure, and a torpedo boat still had to move on the surface and get in range. This at a time when surface action between warships was the only method of combat. Which is why I'd put the battleship's obsolescence point around the interwar period with a few early alarms in the first world war. The sub, the mine, the aircraft all simple deterrents to the usefulness of the battleship.

For ships intended to engage other surface combatants and decisively establish naval supremacy pretty much none ever did. They just ran into mines, were scuttled, sunk by U-boats or taken down by aircraft. Hence the relegation to c&c and amphibious support prior to decommission.
Click to expand...

The torpedo boat (or even effective coastal guns) put the first dent... while the British pulled of the bombardment of Mers el Kebir even in 1940 it was an exception than the rule. In 1800s naval superiority meant that you can achieve something like that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Alexandria

From the beginning of the 20th century practically none used a fleet like that.
 
bz249 said:
The torpedo boat (or even effective coastal guns) put the first dent... while the British pulled of the bombardment of Mers el Kebir even in 1940 it was an exception than the rule. In 1800s naval superiority meant that you can achieve something like that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Alexandria

From the beginning of the 20th century practically none used a fleet like that.
Click to expand...

Which is why one simply shifts to a policy of distant rather than close blockade.
 
bz249 said:
Which as a message not as strong as burning coastal cities to ash ;-)
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Then again, that doesn't mean it isn't a useful function, and one that can only be maintained against enemy battleships if you have battleships of your own.

Though as far as coastal bombardment goes, it did still occur; see Port Arthur, Hartlepool et al, Gallipoli, Normandy, etc...
 
DoomBunny said:
No, it's not. Then again, that doesn't mean it isn't a useful function, and one that can only be maintained against enemy battleships if you have battleships of your own.

Though as far as coastal bombardment goes, it did still occur; see Port Arthur, Hartlepool et al, Gallipoli, Normandy, etc...
Click to expand...

Sure it is a useful ability... but Nelson had a wider variety of options to exploit his naval superiority than Jellicoe (and because of naval aviations Nimitz got back that liberty).
 
bz249 said:
Sure it is a useful ability... but Nelson had a wider variety of options to exploit his naval superiority than Jellicoe (and because of naval aviations Nimitz got back that liberty).
Click to expand...

And this in no way shows battleships to be obsolete, or a waste of money.
 
The last battleship was constructed in what? Late 40's early 50's? The first carriers were built in the 1920's -30's. Battleships were demonstrated to be of lower value in the early 40's.

All things considered I'd say lessons we're learned fast. At least for the militaries.....
 
Dracolithfiend said:
The last battleship was constructed in what? Late 40's early 50's? The first carriers were built in the 1920's -30's. Battleships were demonstrated to be of lower value in the early 40's.

All things considered I'd say lessons we're learned fast. At least for the militaries.....
Click to expand...

HMS Vanguard keel laid down nov 1944... this one was completed.

The last one started was the Soviet battlecruiser Stalingrad (keel laid down 1951... launched 03/1954 but as a target vehicle)
 
bz249 said:
This shows that the dreadnought battleship was a much less useful tool in its time then the Man-o-War in the Age of Sails. Not obsolete, but nether a panacea.
Click to expand...

And in itself, a navy was a less useful tool for most in 1940 than it was in 1805. Really I don't see what you're saying here.
 
The-Doc said:
But yeah, there is a reason navies gravitate towards less large ships now. If anything weapon developments continue to reinforce this lesson.
Click to expand...

The mainstay of the US navy is the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. They weigh in at 9,800 tons. Under the Washington Naval Treaty, heavy cruisers were limited to 10,000 tons. So essentially what we are calling destroyers these days are what in the early 20th century they would have called cruisers and what in the late 19th century they would have called auxiliary battleships. These destroyers serve as screens to aircraft carriers that weigh 100,000 tons, twice the Iowa.
 
keynes2.0 said:
The mainstay of the US navy is the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. They weigh in at 9,800 tons. Under the Washington Naval Treaty, heavy cruisers were limited to 10,000 tons. So essentially what we are calling destroyers these days are what in the early 20th century they would have called cruisers and what in the late 19th century they would have called auxiliary battleships. These destroyers serve as screens to aircraft carriers that weigh 100,000 tons, twice the Iowa.
Click to expand...

We also live in a time of single nation naval supremacy with no expectation of real conflict. I doubt this style of fleet would persist long if actually under threat.
 
The-Doc said:
We also live in a time of single nation naval supremacy with no expectation of real conflict. I doubt this style of fleet would persist long if actually under threat.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough I don't think we will ever see another global Hegemony I think we are most likely to revert back to more great powers type system with many strong powers rising India and China being direct rivals the Us and Brazil in the Americas.God knows what happens in the EU.
 
The-Doc said:
We also live in a time of single nation naval supremacy with no expectation of real conflict. I doubt this style of fleet would persist long if actually under threat.
Click to expand...

if for no apparent reason nuclear powers are going to fight a large scale conventional naval war then submarines gonna ass-rape every ship... surface ships (including carriers) are not for that purpose but to attack 4th tier nations
 
bz249 said:
if for no apparent reason nuclear powers are going to fight a large scale conventional naval war then submarines gonna ass-rape every ship... surface ships (including carriers) are not for that purpose but to attack 4th tier nations
Click to expand...
Except the Falklands provides a fantastic counter example. Two nations with near-peer capabilities fighting a conventional fight in a remote location. Whether the UK would have descended to using nuclear weapons is unclear, but also unlikely!
 
Easy-Kill said:
Except the Falklands provides a fantastic counter example. Two nations with near-peer capabilities fighting a conventional fight in a remote location. Whether the UK would have descended to using nuclear weapons is unclear, but also unlikely!
Click to expand...

Nevertheless they brought a few nukes just in case (ok probably it was not so easy to unload them from HMS Sheffield)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back