Battleship vs Carrier

[Mono06]

Which is the better?

[RoastCoffee]

Carriers are a bit more versatile, but battleships are not worthless in this game.

Carrier
- airwings give great striking range
- Fighters and CAS can support ground troops
- Armor is lower, but they usually sit at the very back of a taskforce, accessible only to planes and maybe subs.
- While air wings are a benefit, they also cost in terms of factories to build and research slots to advance

Battleship
- striking range is limited to its guns (no hitting stuff 200 miles out like a carrier can)
- naval invasion support and shore bombardment
- very good armor and survivability
- firepower will shred lesser surface ships

Keep in mind, WW2 was the era where the carrier overcame the battleship as the primary capital ship. Battleships still had uses, but were on their way out.

[andersrlarsen]

Carrier, pure and simple.
Even battlecruicers are better than battleships (less armor, but higher speed and less construction time).

In fact, i would even say light cruicers are more usefull than battleships, if you team them with 3-4 carriers and 3-4 battlecruiser.
However, always make sure that your carriers and capital ships have sufficient screening. Otherwise, you could just as well only build cruicers...

[Ragnarok]

I did fine with ignoring working on Carriers and planes, focusing on BB's and Torpedo cruisers as Japan.

I built Yamatos and made AA cruisers, mixed iwth Torp cruisers and BB's. The United states just kept getting whipped. Granted it was aginst AI.

Fighting AI vs Fighting a player are different.

[MadMek]

The idea that carriers made battleships obsolete and utterly dominated them throughout WWII is a myth. Battleships were used extensively and to good effect, even when under threat of aircraft, throughout the european theater. There were few battleship-on-battleship conflicts in the pacfiic, because the americans had lost a huge chunk of their battle line at pearl harbor, whereas Japan, for whatever reason, refused to commit their battleships to action until their fleet had been devastated to the point where they could no longer properly support them. This was a huge tactical error and a bizarre decision in light of their investment in the crushingly powerful Yamato classes.

The sinking of the Yamato by aircraft is something people love to cite as conclusive proof that battleships are useless in the face of air power. What they conveniently leave out is that planes didn't simply waltz in and oneshot the Yamato, it was a huge operation requiring nearly four hundred planes. And this was in a situation where, due to the current status of the IJN, the Yamato was supported only be a few destroyers. Imagine trying to sink such a ship when supported with a proper battlegroup.

The real end to the age of the battleship came because after the devastation of the war, no one but the US and the USSR could afford to maintain them. The British empire was crumbling under it's own weight, France was still rebuilding, and Germany, Italy, And Japan were devastated in every possible way, and bound by a variety of treaties restricting their military. And while the Soviet Union did come out of the war strong, they were never a good naval power and their battleship program never got off the ground.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by MadMek:

The idea that carriers made battleships obsolete and utterly dominated them throughout WWII is a myth. Battleships were used extensively and to good effect, even when under threat of aircraft, throughout the european theater. There were few battleship-on-battleship conflicts in the pacfiic, because the americans had lost a huge chunk of their battle line at pearl harbor, whereas Japan, for whatever reason, refused to commit their battleships to action until their fleet had been devastated to the point where they could no longer properly support them. This was a huge tactical error and a bizarre decision in light of their investment in the crushingly powerful Yamato classes.

The sinking of the Yamato by aircraft is something people love to cite as conclusive proof that battleships are useless in the face of air power. What they conveniently leave out is that planes didn't simply waltz in and oneshot the Yamato, it was a huge operation requiring nearly four hundred planes. And this was in a situation where, due to the current status of the IJN, the Yamato was supported only be a few destroyers. Imagine trying to sink such a ship when supported with a proper battlegroup.

The real end to the age of the battleship came because after the devastation of the war, no one but the US and the USSR could afford to maintain them. The British empire was crumbling under it's own weight, France was still rebuilding, and Germany, Italy, And Japan were devastated in every possible way, and bound by a variety of treaties restricting their military. And while the Soviet Union did come out of the war strong, they were never a good naval power and their battleship program never got off the ground.

I hope they come out with a DLC for ship models. Would love to see the Bismarck/Yamato/The Hood with models. Would be neato.

[MadMek]

Yea, being able to actually see ships appearing as they ought to would be cool.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by MadMek:

Yea, being able to actually see ships appearing as they ought to would be cool.

I mean, as it is, you cant see many ships. You see only the capital ships I think right? Im not sure how the sprites work for ships, but I know ive seen BB's, but I'd love to see the BISMARCK. :D

Speaking of Bismarck. I found it interesting its counted as a Super Heavy BB in game.

[MadMek]

It is? That's totally wrong, the Bismark was average sized for the era. The only real super heavy BB's were the two Yamato classes, which utterly dwarfed the Bismark.

[Mikey]

If you have to choose, Carriers...

A carrier will sink a battleship 9/10 because of the range from it's bombers
On top of that carriers are faster than BBs and BCs

With that said a tag team of CVs and BB/BC supports is just golden, but carriers are most definately more important than big boomboxes.
Personally I prefer BCs because of their speed advantage.
They are invulnerable to smaller ships except for heavy cruisers with guns of a higher tier than their armour as well as big guns of a lower tier, but they make up for that by being a lot faster and less cost intensive both in production and repairs.
I like to go for a main task force of 4 CVs and 5-7 BCs with 50-65 DDs as screens. If I am using it as a patrol fleet itself I will swap out some DDs for recon CLs (light cruisers filled with spotter aircraft)
But if I can't fill out the BCs I can also go with just the CV with CL and DD support (preferably 4 CV, 5 CL, 15 DD lineup)

Originally posted by Barneys Had Enough Of You.:

Speaking of Bismarck. I found it interesting its counted as a Super Heavy BB in game.

Yeah, the Bismarck wasn't a super heavy. It was designed from the similar tactical standpoint of the pocket battleship (Outrun anything it can't kill, kill anything it can't outrun).
It had weaker armour, smaller caliber guns and a lot fewer guns than same generation UK battleships. What it did have was superior speed and gunnery control, and an armour scheme suited for long range engagements.

[|H|H| Fr3ddi3]

Originally posted by MadMek:

It is? That's totally wrong, the Bismark was average sized for the era. The only real super heavy BB's were the two Yamato classes, which utterly dwarfed the Bismark.

The naming conventions of tech in hoi4 is just flavour text, it does not mean anything and reading into it with any great deal of interest is gonna open up a huge rabbit hole.

It's the same reason why the 'Thompson SMG' for America is a 1942 Tech or the 'Spitfire' is the 1940's plane not 1938, or the Matilda being classed as a light tank when in reality it was effectively heavy tank so on and so forth, there's loads of examples in game of things being in the wrong time slot but that's a by product of the game not having unique units for individual nations at different times.

Ultimately, Spitfire just reads better than 'Tier 2 fighter or 1942 Fighter' that's all it is.

The Bismark ship itself would be counted as the 1940's / Tier 3 battleship for Germany, build one and change it's name to Bismark if it did not start with the game and it's job done.

[jackhickman999]

Originally posted by MadMek:

It is? That's totally wrong, the Bismark was average sized for the era. The only real super heavy BB's were the two Yamato classes, which utterly dwarfed the Bismark.

Yeah the Yamato was large but it wasn't the most expensive for many reasons. I would place my money on bis or Iowa over the yamato.
Yamato was sinking well before the final attacks and was ruined beyond repair long before the attacks had ceased.
So saying it was a 400 plane attack makes it sound like it took 400 planes it didn't take that many the American went full ♥♥♥♥♥♥ and dabbed on it.

[MadMek]

The bismark wouldn't stand a chance in hell against the Yamato. The Iowa MIGHT have a chance, but only because of better radar rangefinding, and that's only if they got lucky and didn't get ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ obliterated by a three thousand pound 18" shell.

[jackhickman999]

Originally posted by MadMek:

The bismark wouldn't stand a chance in hell against the Yamato. The Iowa MIGHT have a chance, but only because of better radar rangefinding, and that's only if they got lucky and didn't get ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ obliterated by a three thousand pound 18" shell.

Yeah of course not, 18 inch guns that were bad, day time shooting which was pretty much the worse of all major nations. Range finding that would often ♥♥♥♥ its self. Terrible torp protection, slower speed , armour that was thick but poor.

Bismarck wasn't flawless but to say that it would stand no chance is funny. People make out that they tiny 14 british inch guns where terrible and would be no match for bismarck armour in the actual fight they blew straight through some of it thickest points.

[MadMek]

Riiiiight, terrible torpedo protection, THATS why the Musashi took 19 torpedo hits. Slow speed, which is why they went faster than that average american battleship half their size. And of course, "bad" 18" guns, because... bad? Somehow? Just because?

You clearly haven't done ANY research.

[jackhickman999]

Originally posted by MadMek:

Riiiiight, terrible torpedo protection, THATS why the Musashi took 19 torpedo hits. Slow speed, which is why they went faster than that average american battleship half their size. And of course, "bad" 18" guns, because... bad? Somehow? Just because?

You clearly haven't done ANY research.

You do realise that it didn't take 19 torps to kill and american had terrible torps.
You're a complete noob any naval historian will dab on you for not saying it was bad.