GeneralMatt's Creation Thread
- Thread starter GeneralMatt
- Start date
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Yes and no... he's back to work, but he's not really on the forum.Is GM back? O_O
Good timing!
IagoAlberto
Warlord
Love the model, cudos on the good work General Matt. I just gotta say that while powerful the pocket battleships were probably no more powerful than some of the large WWII heavy cruisers. I'm thinking specifically of the Baltimores and probably the Takaos, the latter largely because of the long lance. They are down-right inferior to the Des Moines, although that doesn't say much given the fact the american ship had almost twice the displacement. Intersting ships though and definitely a good fit for German cruisers in Wolf's mod.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
This is true... tonnage-wise, they were roughly equivalent to large heavy cruisers... they were well-armed with six 11inch guns, but armor was mediocre and speed was less then that of heavy cruisers... I'd take a Baltimore or a Takao over the Deutschlands any day (still prefer the Baltimore... the ultimate CA design).
At the time of conception, the Deutschland-class Pocket Battleships were very unique and interesting designs... built to sink any cruiser or smaller, and outrun any battleship (at the time, outrun any WWI Dreadnought). In other words, it was built to sink anything it couldn't outrun, and outrun anything it couldn't sink. By the time the first was built in 1931, this was a very good concept... any cruiser could outrun it, but they were only armed with 6" or 8" guns... all the battleships at the time were too slow to catch the pocket battleships... unfortunately, a few years later, all the major navies started producing "fast battleships"... full-sized, fully-armed, fully armored battleships that were not only bigger and meaner then the pocket battleships... but faster too!
Still... these were dangerous ships... and more then a handful for any but the biggest of heavy cruisers.
IagoAlberto
Warlord
Yeah they were definitely ingenious solutions to fit into the versailles limitations on German battleships, even if they did 'cheat' by a couple 1000 tons. Also interesting was the advanced construction techniques for the time. The Germans used welding, first major use on a large scale warship plus the diesel engines for great range. They would have been great against Germany's planned enemies of France or Russia but they were SoL against either Britain's or Japan's Battlecruisers. I've always wondered about this myself because their stated purpose was to fight Russia or France. They seem designed to be used in a guerre de course against the British Empire given their long range and armament to out fight any trade protection cruisers. Still, I suppose they could be used against French trade.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
If you ask me, they were purpose-built commerce raiders... what else could they be? They were NEVER built to stand-up to any capital ship from any navy... the Deutschlands would have been outclassed easily by France's Battleships, and probably wouldn't do so hot against the Russian ones either (though the Ganguts were nothing to write home about). Simply put, these were built to out-fight cruisers and out-run battleships... the expected escorts of convoys are destroyers and/or cruisers... hence their designed purpose.
Even in 1931, there were only three ships in the entire Royal Navy who could catch and destroy the Deutschlands... Hood, Repulse and Reknown... the three British battlecruisers... all the other British warships were either too small or too slow.
Of course the 1930s saw the rise of the fast-battleship in all the world's major navies, so the Deutschlands were quickly obsoleted... they still did well for themselves, and the Graf Spee in-particular could have/would have fared much better if she didn't charge like a crazy nutcase straight into the Exeter, Achilles and Ajax... the Graf Spee would have been much better-off taking advantage of her 11" gun-range as long as possible, not trying to close the distance as fast as possible... that played into the British hands.
Plus that whole "sink yourself" thing at the end when the Graf Spee was still better-off then her opponents... that was stupid. I assure you, when I add Pocket Battleships to the Wolfshanze Mod, none will sink themselves... they'll all fight to the death!
Even in 1931, there were only three ships in the entire Royal Navy who could catch and destroy the Deutschlands... Hood, Repulse and Reknown... the three British battlecruisers... all the other British warships were either too small or too slow.
Of course the 1930s saw the rise of the fast-battleship in all the world's major navies, so the Deutschlands were quickly obsoleted... they still did well for themselves, and the Graf Spee in-particular could have/would have fared much better if she didn't charge like a crazy nutcase straight into the Exeter, Achilles and Ajax... the Graf Spee would have been much better-off taking advantage of her 11" gun-range as long as possible, not trying to close the distance as fast as possible... that played into the British hands.
Plus that whole "sink yourself" thing at the end when the Graf Spee was still better-off then her opponents... that was stupid. I assure you, when I add Pocket Battleships to the Wolfshanze Mod, none will sink themselves... they'll all fight to the death!
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this page, Wolfshanze:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
It is a random comparison of several capital ships from World War II that I ran across while searching for statistics. Seems to be weighted toward American vessels. Whether that is justified or not, I will let you determine.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
It is a random comparison of several capital ships from World War II that I ran across while searching for statistics. Seems to be weighted toward American vessels. Whether that is justified or not, I will let you determine.
IagoAlberto
Warlord
@Wolf, they were definitely purpose built commerce raiders. I was more pointing out some of the inconsitancies of German inter-war naval strategy. I remember seeing an intersting article a few years ago on the development of the German's thinking on naval strategy in the inter war years and how it interfaced with warship design. To put it in a nutshell they didn't know what they wanted.
Graf Spee's captain was as you point out a lousy tactician. Although it was always gonna be difficult for him to out-maneuver 3 faster ships. Now the Scheer's cruise in 1940, that was a master course in commerce raiding.
@Gaius, that comparison does have some flaws but the basic conclusion is right. The two American ships are excellent battleships. Each of them probably has a 50-50 shot fighting Yamato, even though the Japanese ship is more heavily armed and armoured. The american 16" with the 2700lb super heavy shell are actually almost as good as Yamato's 18.1" at piercing armour according to comparative tests done post war at Dahlgren. The SoDak's 16/45's are better deck penetrators and Iowa's 16/50's are better vs horrizontal armour. American radar fire control also gave the yanks a huge advantage over other countries', Britain excepted, fire control systems. They could hit first, and keep hitting at longer ranges. U.S.S. New Jersey straddled a Japanese destroyer during a raid on Truk at over 36,000 yards!
Generally I find the comparison to be heavily weighted to all-around fighting value not just the battleship vs battleship value. If the latter were the case Iowa would likely still come out on top but by a much slimer margin. As to the other ships ratings, personally I think they rate Vittorio Veneto too low. Its main armament was, according to the evidence I've seen, better than that comparison gives it credit for. As for the KGV, Bismarck and Richilieu the values they have 'feel' about right. Bismarck was certainly not the super battleship many people precieve her to be.
Graf Spee's captain was as you point out a lousy tactician. Although it was always gonna be difficult for him to out-maneuver 3 faster ships. Now the Scheer's cruise in 1940, that was a master course in commerce raiding.
@Gaius, that comparison does have some flaws but the basic conclusion is right. The two American ships are excellent battleships. Each of them probably has a 50-50 shot fighting Yamato, even though the Japanese ship is more heavily armed and armoured. The american 16" with the 2700lb super heavy shell are actually almost as good as Yamato's 18.1" at piercing armour according to comparative tests done post war at Dahlgren. The SoDak's 16/45's are better deck penetrators and Iowa's 16/50's are better vs horrizontal armour. American radar fire control also gave the yanks a huge advantage over other countries', Britain excepted, fire control systems. They could hit first, and keep hitting at longer ranges. U.S.S. New Jersey straddled a Japanese destroyer during a raid on Truk at over 36,000 yards!
Generally I find the comparison to be heavily weighted to all-around fighting value not just the battleship vs battleship value. If the latter were the case Iowa would likely still come out on top but by a much slimer margin. As to the other ships ratings, personally I think they rate Vittorio Veneto too low. Its main armament was, according to the evidence I've seen, better than that comparison gives it credit for. As for the KGV, Bismarck and Richilieu the values they have 'feel' about right. Bismarck was certainly not the super battleship many people precieve her to be.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Pretty much correct... though to be honest... a one-on-one battleship vs battleship duel... pretty much any of these ships is just as likely to come-out on-top as one of the others.
Some other factors that are just as important that they did not rate is crew training and what-not. That plays a big part in getting the most out of any ship.
As for the Bismarck, the legend is bigger then the ship... but I sometimes feel to deflate that legend, some historians go too-far off the opposite end and undervalue the ship itself. It was not cutting-edge by any means... but at 50,000 tons, she was very difficult to sink, and was historically able to take-on two opposing battleships and easily win... something few if any other battleships in WWII did... the final battle where the Bismarck was lost cannot be fairly rated since the Bismarck had no ability to steer at all due to the freak torpedo hit in just the right place. No battleship could have won in such a situation.
The list is nothing more then conjecture... the "weakest" ship on that list could have a round penetrate to the magazine of the "most powerful" ship on that list and guess who wins? It's all conjecture.
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
True, it may ultimately be nothing more than conjecture, but if you had to balance units for a Civ 4 mod (such as the Wolfshanze Mod, haha) it would be worth knowing the relative strengths vs. other battleships as well as vessels of smaller classes.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Yes... I took that into serious consideration... the best battleship could sink the worst battleship... ergo all battleships get a Str-42 in the Wolfshanze Mod!
Hey... Civ4 is just not meant to be that realistic... it's a very abstract game... ergo the abstract stats.For Wolf's real opinion on Battleship strengths (offense, defense, speed, etc), you'd have to check out my work in creating the Equipment Roster for Pacific General (PacGen) which has seperate stats for all kinds of values, instead of just a single value like in Civ4 (the full game is a free download these days). If you're really desperate, I can always post the Battleship stats from my Excel file I made for the game. Every single Battleship from every single navy, belligerent or neutral has separate stats in that game which I made an equipment roster for.
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
It wouldn't hurt to post that. 
After all, we can simulate the equipment differences by modding the bombard rate, basic strength, modifiers vs. unit classes, withdrawal rate, collateral damage, and first strikes of different ships. These have not been utilized to the degree they could have been in many naval combat mods (yours being a notable exception, of course ). It would make things more interesting.
After all, we can simulate the equipment differences by modding the bombard rate, basic strength, modifiers vs. unit classes, withdrawal rate, collateral damage, and first strikes of different ships. These have not been utilized to the degree they could have been in many naval combat mods (yours being a notable exception, of course ). It would make things more interesting.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Oh fine... you had to ask... mind you... PacGen is more detailed then Civ4 in stats, but it's still a "beer and pretzels" kind of game, so I did generalize some of the numbers (or I got lazy... go figure).It wouldn't hurt to post that.
Here's the stats from PacGen:
Abbreviation Codes:
Move = Naval Movement
INT = Initiative (who gets "the jump")
RNG = Range (I admit I fudged these, based solely on gun calibre... 16"=7, 15"=6, etc)
AA = Anti-Air Artillery rating
NA = Naval Attack
GD = Ground Defense... ie: defensive integrity
AD = Air Defense... ie: integrity vs air attacks
TD = Torpedo Defense
Realize, as with all games, there are certain limitations... so the above numbers were based on a "best possible" given the ranges I was allowed to work with.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Meanwhile... somewhere in the South Atlantic... progress continues...
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Work progresses
IagoAlberto
Warlord
Looks great Matt! My only comments would be: From the photos I have seen the conning tower forward should rise one deck above the rest of the bridge structure. I would also say that the deck around the funnel is a bit large. Otherwise its spot on.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
There's been on-going corrections... its entering the "nearly completed" part, and I've got Matt doing some last minute updates, including bridge-work, seconday batteries, 88 AA batteries and some texture work... it's coming along quite nicely.
Similar threads
