Are WW2 Navies Accurate In HOI4!?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 11. 2022
- Original Video: • World War 2 Navy Compa...
Support me on PATREON / feedbackgaming
Sub to my MAIN CZcams: @FeedBackGaming
Sub to my FEEDBACKIRL on CZcams: @FeedbackIRL
Sub to MEMES channel: @Feedback Memes
DISCORD talk with me / discord
Follow on TWITTER: / feedbackgaming
Follow for TWITCH livestreams: / feedbackgaming
Business email: davefeedbackgaming@gmail.com
Produced by Duck Taped Studios:
- Twitter - / markoni1100
- Business Email - themarkoni1199@gmail.com
Edited by Dosonomeizu:
- Discord - dosonomeizu# 6355
Thumbnail by MrBart:
- Website - tobiasmuller.eu/en
#hoi4 #history #ww2 - Zábava
Fun fact about the Battle of Leyte Gulf. 5 of the US battleships were rebuilt battleships of Pearl Harbor and they were sent to engage a Japanesse force. This would be the last Battleship vs Battleship battle in history. The US battleships dominated the Japanesse ships and it was considered for the crews of the US Battleships as revenge for Pearl Harbor.
Yep, Battle of Surigao Strait
@Vlad Melis I mean, it was a lot of things. A fair fight wasnt one of them
@Vlad Melis No one claimed it was an even fight.
Pretty sure all but like 2 of the ships damaged at Pearl Harbour sailed again to fire their guns in anger at the Japanese navy. Long term that attack did absolutely nothing but completely bone the axis war effort
@@TheTeremaster yeah out of the battleships. Except Nevada, who didn't serve in the Pacific (tho she did serve in the Atlantic). It's often said that one of Arizona's guns was given to Pennsylvania so she got to exact her revenge as well
Italy: has 250 ships
HoI4: gives them 1922 tecnology
the ships after few months:💀
Historically accurate. Well, they did last a BIT longer than that, but not much. By 1942 the Med was a British lake.
If you look at Italian ship designs, there are some interesting ship and some good ships. That can’t be said about their light ships though.
Most of their DDs were older anyways. 1920s-1930s this meant that their tonnage prevented massive armaments. Limited to 4 or 5 120mm guns and maybe 6 torpedoes. These ships are just like British DDs of A-I Classes. 4 120mm guns though 8-10 torpedoes. These ships were peacetime constructs and therefore much lighter then war time productions.
The Cruisers of Italy are 🤷♂️. Most navies didn’t have excellent CL designs and have rather old or bad designs. The British and Americans had good ones and improved during the war. French, Soviets, and most of the Axis had really poor CLs. This is because they all focused on larger ships and if they did build cruisers they were CAs.
@@joecool2810yeah if you death stack your fleet, all the screens practically evaporate in its first engagement
7:00 Actually the WWII in Pacific technically starts with Japanese invasion of Malay Peninsula a few hours before Pearl Harbor.
Some argue it already started in 1937. But that is just a definition.
@@ChaosEICHe said "WWII in [the] Pacific", so it's pretty clear he means the moment when the Sino-Japanese war and WWII become the same conflict, by the Allies now being at war with Japan.
@@Zwijger Well, the Yellow Sea and the Chinese Sea are part of the pacific. And the first American warship was also sunk in 1937.
@@ChaosEIC yes
Tirpitz was basically forced to hide in Norwegian fjords for most of the war.
Yeah, it and Bismark were so large that there was only one safe atlantic port that could service them if they became damaged, which was in France (Saint-Nazaire). So British commandos crashed a ship full of explosives into it and then wrecked the infrastructure around it. That meant that the Tirpitz couldn't operate in the atlantic, as if it was damaged it would have to either sail around the north of the UK and back down, or try and get through the english channel, both locations heavily patrolled by the british home fleet.
Zukaku and Shokaku were the most advanced carriers on the planet at the start of the war. For Midway it's not just carrier-borne aircraft on the American side. Midway also had a navy airbase on the island which contributes to the number of American aircraft. But yea the American carriers were usually a lil larger than the Japanese counterparts but especially at the start the Japanese air attacks were better coordinated and usually larger that's also partly due to differing doctrines.
Then few other things you asked about, Tirpitz stayed in Norway most of the war and threatened the Artic convoys, it had maybe 1? actual sortie during that time. Then the battle of the Philippine sea was also entirely American forces. America produced a ridiculous number of carriers by the end of the war.
US Aircraft had to use radios and similar to coordinate during Pearl Harbor and other early airbattles, the Japanese used hand signals.
They weren't the most advanced. They may have been the newest but they were lacking. They couldn't refuel and rearm their planes on the deck like the older American carriers, instead having to lower them down to the hanger, and they lacked a catapult to assist in launching, something that literally every US carrier had
@@TheTeremaster While yes the US carriers had catapults at the start of the war they were essentially useless. It wasn’t until the essex class that deck catapults were actually viable
You mentioned the 2 best carriers they had. Yet they are still running around with with the Hoso as a combat carrier. The US was more consistent with Yorktown class and Intrepid class. Yes there were jeep carriers but they were not considered front line. They were ASW carriers and ferried aircraft to the larger carriers. With the exception of the Rijo (I think I spelled that wrong ) every carrier was front line regardless of size. Whether it was built in the early 1920s or 1940s.
Yes I'm aware of that crappy excuse of a US Carrier that sank off the west Coast of Australia South of Java in early 1942. Can't remember the name.
If Paradox wanted to incentivize building navies they shouldn’t have taken away the 15 dockyards feature. As well as incentivize making smaller task forces within a larger fleet. But because paradox is paradox they still can’t figure out a competent naval system that isn’t death stacking or submarine spamming
script edit goes brrrrrrrr (15k pc ships under 3 weeks)
Maybe Paradox just, like, really loves Mahan?
(Mahan famously wrote to basically never split the fleet)
Maybe an idea is to add a naval industry line in the tech tree. That increases the dockyard limit and gives more dockyard output. Like dispersed/concentrated industry.
Man I really miss that 15 dockyards feature. Feels like I've used my navy less ever since man the guns
Death stacking is a bad idea for a whole number of reasons
The Japanese attacked like 20 bases on December 7th, so it wasn’t really the ships that made britain declare war, it was the complete assault Japan did on a bunch of allied pacific holdings that made them declare on Japan.
One of my favorite videos has got to be the one where they showed the ships pumped out day by day during the war. Might have been made by this channel. I think it looked at just America and Japan, and it was amazing seeing the USA pump ships of every size out every other day while Japan made a destroyer every month or so.
I know which video you're talking about, but Idr the name. Ik it wasn't a Wargaming video though
Video is called "Why Japan had NO chance in WW2" Was made by Military History Visualized.
Either Tully or Parshall (Shattered Sword) gave a lecture where they looked at aircraft carrier production. Japan replaced their losses from Midway by like 1944. The US had replaced all their early war losses, and multiplied the size of their carrier fleet, by like 1943. Plus making stupid amounts of escort carriers too.
It was this one by Military History Visualised:
czcams.com/video/l9ag2x3CS9M/video.html
The hunt for the Bizmark was hugely stepped up because of how crazy good the raids of the Graf Spee had been. @FeedbackIRL, please check out the history of the Graf Spee, and you'll see why they sent so many ships after Bizmark.
The Japanese carriers were not less capable, but they were a hell a lot less survivable than a UK carrier. The UK made reinforced decks. Which was why they carried less aircraft.
Sinking the Hood made it an exceedingly attractive target.
i think there was also a lesson from the imperial german cruiser emden that raided a lot of entente ships in the east indian ocean during ww1 as well for the decision to hunt bismarck as heavily as they did
There's this strategy sim game called War on the Sea which is entirely based on naval combat in the Pacific. If you play as the Japanese you're at a massive disadvantage as your ships are very outdated, you need to use and abuse your bases and send constant airwings to patrol and bomb allied vessels as your only real advantages are the number of bases and sadly the very difficult to use and unreliable torpedoes. The Edified Gamer, as smaller youtuber, has currently a 20+ video campaign with the IJN using the Pacific mod which greatly enhances the game. There's barely been any ship on ship combat and often those engagements come with a flight of airplanes to back up his ships. It's super entertaining and informative to watch.
Maybe they could allow conversion of mils or civs to dockyards in coastal tiles? That really wouldn't be enough to make people focus on naval build ups, but it could help on the margins
or or, heres an idea just hear me out, with each tech of concentrated or dispersed add a higher ship building industry cap instead of this absurd 5 docyards capitals 10 for lights setup
@@novitrix9671 Yeah its absurd - if anything it makes more sense to be the other way around.
Japanese carriers were fairly advanced compared to the American carriers of the early pacific war. The issue was information and timing the sorties to attack a naval base while also trying to attack a naval carrier group which required different armaments and cost more time. So when us carrier groups showed themselves it was shit show for japan because they couldn't hit the sweet spot.
8:30 battle of Midway- the Americans had fewer carriers but had an airfield on the island.
What this shows is that Battleships could go head to head and keep banging away for hours and hours. Whilst they might disable each other, they were tremendously difficult to sink. And then along come aircraft and bip-bop-boop Battleships suddenly become incredibly vulnerable.
There's a reason most Battleships carried torpedoes, gunfire alone would rarely sink a ship.
The bismark was riddled with shellholes but kept chugging until the torpedoes got it
@@TheTeremaster Except most battleships didn't carry torpedoes. The Nelsons were the exception, not the norm. Even the Japanese gradually removed their torpedoes on battleships and battlecruisers.
If a battleship is in range to use its torpedoes, then it follows that the battleship is in range of the enemy's torpedoes, and that's the last thing you want as a battleship.
Instead, you want the speed to control the range of the engagement, such that you can maintain a distance where you're immune to the enemy's guns.
HMS Rodney only closed into point blank range and launched torpedoes when Bismarck's guns were knocked out and the German battleship was effectively disabled.
Except if you really pay attention to the records, the effect of aircraft against battleships is rather overstated. When you start looking into it, all the battleships sunk by aircraft were suffering from 1 or more critical disadvantages. For the Prince of Wales, her radar was offline. For the Yamato, her anti-aircraft guns weren't connected to her radar. For the Bismark, he had been wounded in a prior surface engagement and couldn't maneuver. The US pacific fleet was at anchor. The Italian battleships were obsolete WWI ships without radar.
The list is long, and the conclusion is that the effectiveness of aircraft against battleships is drastically overestimated.
@@darthsteel9333 Very true. If aircraft were so effective against battleships, then the Japanese tactic of kamikaze would have been extra effective. However, American battleships which were up-to-date and in fighting shape fared pretty well.
@@Zorro9129 Yes. I looked up the loss records to the kamikaze attacks from the US Navy, basically no warship larger than a destroyer was ever lost to one. We lost a LOT of troopships to them though.
Weirdly the UK's carriers were the best to defend against kamikaze missions because they had armour plating, so while they were hit by strikes it was always quickly repairable
Itisnt wird at all when you consider that they were designed with the threat of being allways in range of land based bombers, they had to be able to take a 250kg bomb and still be operational
@GhostArmy1 I meant more in the way that American carriers weren't deck armour plated as standard for much of the war
8:35 I also want to point out that part of why Japan lost all their carriers to the USA's single carrier is because the US Navy's damage control training and damage control ship design was far more advanced than that of Imperial Japan's.
The USS Yorktown (CV-5) mentioned as having been sunk during the battle of Midway had actually taken 2 torpedo hits and 3 direct bomb hits about a month prior, during the Battle of the Coral Sea. The Japanese even believed they had sunk the Yorktown, and believed that its reappearance in the Battle of Midway was a new Carrier they had not known about.
During the Battle of Midway, the already damaged Yorktown received 3 bomb hits, which threatened to sink the ship entirely, but the sailors managed to control the damage just enough to keep it afloat, but immobile. The engineers restarted the boilers within hours, and continued combat operations. The Yorktown finally sunk after receiving another 2 torpedo strikes.
By comparison, the Soryu was struck by a single bombing strike of 3 bombs, and the fires aboard the ship grew out of control minutes later, sinking the carrier.
In fairness to the Japanese the Soryu was hit at the very worst time a carrier could be hit with a fully loaded strike group aboard. Still the Japanese carriers at Coral Sea were crippled for extended periods with bomb hits and Yorktown was back in action 6 months later. Which still illustrates your point.
Maybe save the eating for after
We can argue about the combat effectiveness of The Bismarck, but any single ship, that can cause your enemies to send 65 ships after him, is impressive. He may have not been able to actually rule the waves, but he sure did try and he sure did have a real shock factor.
And look, i am german and i love military and naval history, i dont support what happened,but i also cant denie how effective germany was during WW2, and im not proud for what they did, but i still love my country and its history.
Stop calling bismarck “he” holy shit that was one admiral who said that and the captain of her hated him
The airplane advantage of the American navy in the battle of midway wasn’t because the carriers were larger, but because the island of midway itself had an airbase
the pacific ocean theatre of the war was either carrier battles or close quarter battles between cruisers and destroyers (and occasionally a battleship or battlecruiser on either side) in more closed off bodies of water between island groups (such as around guadalcanal and what after ww2 was renamed to ironbottom sound). you would think in large open oceans like the pacific, battleships would be more useful but carriers is even more useful due to planes scouting range compared to battleships search radar range, in the european theatre though the battleships makes more sense as land based planes and radar could be used to scout for and protect your battleships
On the point of production, one thing I would love to see implemented (though I know it would be hard to balance) is how quickly France was able to switch to / ramp up war time production. The French military during the interwar periods was geared for one thing, and one thing only, total war. Thus, the nation was able to mobilise its war time economy extremely quickly. By the time Germany had invaded the benelux and France, French armour production had met / exceeded German armour production.
What I don't like about that video is it doesn't show the size and contribution of the Canadian Navy in the Battle of the Atlantic. There's no question that if it wasn't for the Canadian Navy, especially in the early part of the war (39, 40, 41), Britan would have been forced to capitulate due to lack of supply before the US could join the war. At the end of the War, Canada had the 3rd largest Allied navy with over 430 commissioned vessels.
I don't think the Video does justice on the sheer Size and Ability of American Production.
Throughout the war, the US made around 2020 large ships, while the Axis combined made 398 large ships. The US made 29 Fleet Carriers, 121 Escort Carriers. That is the same amount of Fleet Carriers as every other major combatant (Allied and Axis), combined and a more amount of Escort Carriers. The US made 10 Battleships, while the Axis made 9. US 52 cruisers, while Axis made 18. The US made 396 Destroyers while the Axis made 111. 1014 destroyers compared to 234. The only part where the US had less compared to the Axis was in Submarines.
and did all that between '42 and '44. A few were on the slips in '41 but just a few. Production peaked in '43 and was really dying off by late '44.
Japanese Carrier aviation was very advanced by the start of the war, mostly comming down to their very skilled crew. Also the newest Japanese Carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku were the most modern in the world and were built outside of the Naval treaty restrictions (unlike the Yorktown Class of the US). It kind of went down the drain tho when they lost most of their Pilots in the first year of the war.
At Midway however it was the smaller Carriers Hiryu and Soryu together with the older Battleship/Battlecruiser conversions Akagi and Kaga vs. the 3 Modern Fleet Carriers Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown. Also one might say the Americans kinda got lucky with the japanese being caught unexpected while rearming their planes and 3 carriers being disabled with them not having launched their attack on US forces. If they had been abled to launch (and not just the planes on Hiryu) They likely could have taken out the 3 american carriers.
I mean a ton of the battle of midway was luck based. There were to many factors that could’ve gone wrong but luckily it didn’t
The tripitz did nothing in WW2 other then be a target for allied bombing, it never fired a shot in anger and they tried to hide it in a fjord. It was bombed many times and ulimately sunk. This was the flaw with battleships they where so expensive to make, they did want to use them in fear of them getting sunk. WW1 battle was Jutland.
While your statement is true I would like to mention that as long as Tirpitz lasted the threat she projected was drawing significant UK naval forces away from other theatres to protect the convoys in the North. She was actually one of the few examples of a working fleet in being concept based around a battkeship in WW2
@@hariitokyashimoto3458 I agree she possed a threat but a toothless threat.
She did fire her guns in offense several times and acted as a useful object to draw attention away from other theaters. She didn’t do much battle wise but she absolutely was essential in drawing attention away from other things.
The Bismarck going out to raid convoys was actually quite genius, a huge part of convoy escorts were heavy cruisers, which were a lot more resillient in defending against torpedoes than light cruisers and especially destroyers, as Heavy Cruisers had enough firepower to fight off most other ships and were armoured enough to take a heavy beating, a loose battleship in the atlantic, especially the size of hte bismarck would absolutely devastate the allies
If it had been properly supported, yes, it would likely have outshined other raiders by a good bit. Unfortunately Raeder, didn't listen to literally anyone (seriously even Hitler, purportedly told him not to send out the Bismarck) and Raeder, sent it out anyway with only Prinz Eugen as support. Which got it sunk.
If he waited for what was supposed to supposedly be it's original escort, or even any larger escort at all, the Hunt for the Bismarck would have been a rather different affair altogether.
being able to convert military factories to naval would be a nice option, bouncing between the 3 as needed rather than just civie to military
Uhh......Feedback Tirpitz was in Norway for the whole war.
She was "The Lonely Queen of The North" for a reason.
Yea nobody talks about her because she just sits the whole war out
Interesting that almost half of UK subs were based in Singapore/Hong Kong at the start of the war.
The UK expected a fight with Japan. Trade routes to the Empire needed protecting.
2:40 you CAN boost naval production.. its in the bottom left of every focus tree, lol
By 20%, thats useless if you don't have dockyards and naval bases like almost all minor nations
They didnt need 65 ships to sink the Bismarck but to find her. 2 ships in the north atlantic which pretty great and rough
11:50 you have to remember the Liberty class transport ship the US was producing in insane numbers was only rated for about 2 trips across the Atlantic.
Like if you was captain of a ship and did two trips you did not do any more trips as by now the ship was held together by duck tape as a result of it been built from scratch in 24 days.
torpedo attacks I presume from aircraft.
as the range of a battleship or even cruiser shell was way longer then the range of a torpedo.
10:41 that had everything to Waste and plenty of it. they controlled virtually all the world's oil, most of it's rubber, and were fairly used to decedance when production finally came about.
This, despite being put out by WG, was decent in showing naval production before and during the war
Also the bit at the end about Russian shipbuilding programs basically went nowhere cause everyone that wasn't Stalin knew a Navy was pointless and when Stalin died the projects were canned. They did invest a lot into their submarines though, and they were decent. Another gripe I have is they don't talk about the successes of allied submarines. The US' submarine war on Japan did significantly better than Germany's on the Allies in terms of tonnage of ship's sunk (and that's with terrible torpedoes during the early and mid war)
Also, the US had far more than 3 Carriers (2 Lexington class, USS Wasp, USS Ranger, 2 Yorktowns, and a 3rd Yorktown under construction), but the smaller carriers Wasp and Ranger were deemed unfit for the Pacific.
Also while US carriers weren't more advanced at the beginning of the war, and arguably even at the end of the war there was some debate, the US quickly learned things like proper damage control that prevented losses and just outprodhced Japan outright. The US built like 20-something full sized fleet carriers during snd in the years following the war. Although yes, US Carriers carried more (and debatably better) planes
Also yes, the US literally said "We will build more Liberty ships than they can sink. It worked well enough
Also Tirpitz was somewhat different, but was mostly the same to Bismarck. She was sunk in Norway by Tall Boy bombs from the UK.
I do believe all of those carriers are American, but a few may have been British. Regarding Leyte Gulf, if ya want a funny story, read up on the Battle off Samar. David and Goliath, literally. Drachinifiel did a great video on it
Final edits done, sorry, was editing this to answer questions you asked as I watched
I doubt this will be rrad but I'm studying naval history in college and figured "Hey, might as well try to answer these questions, right?
As an elaboration, the US' starting carrier lineup was:
Lexington class: Lexington and Saratoga (large battlecruiser conversions, quite good but inefficient in displacement)
Ranger class: Ranger (Small, slow, weakly protected. Deemed unfit for the Pacific, served in Atlantic for Torch and some other stuff)
Yorktown class: Yorktown, Hornet, Enterprise (Purpose designed treaty carriers, quite good ships in most respects)
Wasp class: Wasp (Leftover treaty tonnage was inadequate to build a full up Yorktown, the compromise decided on was to build a ship largely as capable as a Yorktown but less protected against torpedoes. Naturally caught a submarine's torpedo and sunk)
The Essex class were mobilization carriers, based on the Yorktown to allow work to start asap, and the US built absolute oodles of the things, to the point where late war US fleets were way beyond what HoI depicts ad manageable.
The Independence class light carriers were converted cruisers designed to allow replacements before the first Essexes arrived and were doing a lot of heavy lifting into 1944.
Very roughly speaking, US carriers were resilient to damage if they weren't prepping for a strike and had large air wings, UK carriers were resilient to damage and their armor made them less likely to get critically damaged but had very limited air wings, and Japanese carriers had large air wings but were structured in a way that made them harder to do damage control in. Plus, the US learned the danger of fuel vapor in fueling lines that weren't purged with Lexington at Coral Sea in their first carrier battle, while Japan learned it with Taiho in 1944, too late to save important ships.
One thing worth mention is that even relatively early in the war, once heavy AA fitment got put on ships, the damage to attackers was fearsome. Japanese torpedo bombers at Santa Cruz lost so many of their number flying over South Dakota and going after the refit Enterprise that they barely managed to launch an attack, and the air wing losses were ruinous.
@@xthetenth the US also started WW2 with the escort carrier USS Long Island CVE1 (and USS Langley CV1, but you cant rlly consider her anything bigger than a CVE in 1941)
@@ghostarmy1106 if I recall correctly Langley had been relegated to a Seaplane tender by the time the US joined the war. I could have my dates off though, just woke up so my brain is still like half off lol
"the US quickly learned things like proper damage control that prevented losses"
i think it was with the loss of lexington, or if it was the loss of yorktown, that they implemented a system to their plane fueling system using co2 to flush out the plane fuel pipes on the carriers to help stopping the fires caused by bomb and torpedo hits
@@Deilwynna I don't recall which one it was first used on off the top of my head.. I just remember that the preventable loss of Lexington really kicked US R&D and training into damage control systems
As a Norwegian I have to point out Tirpitz was based in Norway from 42 until it was sunk in 44. Resistance fighters, small submarines and aviation took turns trying to harm it. Because of damages and the threat of the Royal Navy it barely went out to sea. Hiding it in Norwegian fjords still had strategic value: it kept many British ships in the general area. Brave British airmen eventually managed to give it a final blow, they had surprise on their side after violating Swedish airspace.
As a Swede I can confirm that this is a Norwegian lie. Tirpitz was based in the mediterranean islands of Crete the entire war and was later abducted by an alien race. The alien leader later returned to Earth as Bjørn Dæhlie and became the first king of Svalbard where Tirpitz now resides modified into a intergalactic star destroyer.
@@StarscreamSWE Huh ?
Where’d the Tirpitz-in-the-Med idea ever come from?
@@StarscreamSWE As a no-one, i totally agree with that FACT
@@StarscreamSWE I don't think some of the other guys who commented understand the idea of a joke XD
2:36 actually from a strategy gaming perspective, not being able to build up substantially is better because it forces you to be creative, use your resources carefully and think about every bit of production you use. Being forced to use limited resources in smart ways is what makes this game fun
If real life Germany can produce a submarine every few days then I feel like production in HoI4 is far too slow. Especially for the larger ships
Germany produced about 100K airplanes during WWII, so the production of hoi4 is very slow as compared to reality.
If you think sub production is too slow, may I ask you to take a look at the stupid numbers of fleet and escort carriers the US made?
Read history - the real purpose for the Bismarck sortie with only one fast cruiser escort was not commerce raiding but a relocation of its base of operations to Brest, where it would have been much more effective as a commerce raider, it was thought. It was hoped that they could slip by the RN and make It to France without chancing the Channel…
The reason the Bismarck wasn't escorted was both that they didn't have the destroyers free and because the Bismarck was FAST. It could make 35 knots allegedly and while German destroyers were known to hit 38 knots, the Bismarck was larger and performed better in rough North sea waters. The fear was their destroyers wouldn't be able to keep up in raids and would either be caught of guard by themselves or have to slow down the Bismarck, risking its safety more.
Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were also slated to join the operation along with the other two heavy cruisers. Buuuuut things happened to all of those and Tirpitz was still running sea trials in the Baltic so she wouldn’t be able to join at all
She could push 30, maybe 31 knots if redlining but no faster.
Warspite caught a squadron of German destroyers in a Norwegian harbor and obliterated them. Taking Norway basically ruined the German surface fleet. Lots of escorts like DDs and a heavy cruiser were lost plus their light cruisers were less than useful
The Pacific ocean is almost double the size of the Atlantic.
To answer your question about Japanese carriers, no, they were up to par with American carriers at least in the beginning of the war, though their fire control systems were notoriously lacking. The Japanese Naval Aviators aboard were the best in the world, though they would be slowly lost over the course of the war due to the Japanese not training capable replacements. So yes, at the beginning of the war Japanese carriers were a match for American ones, their problem was that they were overused, and, more importantly, they kept running bow first into ambushes because the Americans had broken the Japanese code.
One understated technology was proximity fuses that the Americans used to shoot down Japanese planes. Some say that is why they moved to kamikaze strikes because they felt they would lose the planes anyways.
They dont talk about the fact that germans tried to seize the french fleet at Toulon, but french navy scattled it
from what I know about ship combat, capital ships usually can fight against smaller ships at ranges they can’t return fire, but they often need support and defense at close range. There were many phases of battleship design, but navies preferred the faster cruisers. These ships could also go toe to toe at long range, and both could support seaplanes. A lot of times, like cruisers were outfitted with many anti-aircraft batteries and had modest fire power against screens aircraft carriers are very vulnerable but they can launch long range sorties and devastate enemy fleets or other targets. Destroyers could fight any ships except for heavy battleships, but they excelled at killing submarines, who could easily pick off any of the above listed ships, including supply ships and merchant ships. Depth charges were incredibly lethal to the submarines. In a way, this forms a rock-paper-scissors effect, especially involving torpedoes, since they do so much damage to ships.
What I think is kinda funny is the USA had like the same amount of aircraft carriers of all the ships of Italy
If we could convert civs into naval dockyards, then naval focus could become much more meta.
The Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and the Gneisanau were used as convoy raiders because the kreigsmarine needed a use for them, they weren't built for that. Hitler and the nazi high command wanted a fleet-in-being of surface battleships because that brought a level of prestige submarines didn't, whereas the navy would've much rathered more screens and subs for convoy raiding.
The reason no one talks about Tirpitz is she did nothing but sit in a fjord the entire war
War economy and Total mobilisation do give dockyard output.
The reason the us had more planes at midway had more to do with the airfield on the island than the hanger space on the carriers
Dunno if anyone else said this before, but here goes:
The tide in the war tuned in 1942: The Germans offencive was halted at Stalingrad, resulting in its siege, after wich the war became a defencive one for the Germans. Also in 1942 the Japennese were badly beaten in the battle of Midway (aka the Midway turkey shooting). The Germans lost the battle off El Alamain in the same year on the Africa front. The atlantic submarine operations started to falter due to the enigma code braking and more efficient escorting of the convois.
The Bismarck was escorted by the cruiser Prinz Eugen and a supply vessel (who's name I can't remember atm) and it was sent out to do what it was build to do in regards of the operational oders at the time: fight the Americans at home and prevent the Russians and Britains from recieving necessary supplies. And by all accounts it was a very succesfull operation and would have ereturned home in sescent shape had it not have its own design flaw: the propellers were centred together too much (which is ironicly also something tha saeled the fate of the hms Hood, the Brittish flag ship which the Bismarck sunk. Which incidentelly doubled the Brittish disire to sink her).
The Tirpitz was damaged shortly after she took to sea for the first time in Danish waters. She thus went to Norway for repairs, taking some 9 months I believe, after which scuba divers succesfully raided and damaged her again. She was then secretly tranferred up North, were she was anchorred in a protected fjord. When the allied came to bomb her with their longest distand bombers, the fjord was filled with smoke to protect her. After the loss of the Bismarck, the Germans could not afford to lose theri second pride of the fleet so she remained anchored there during most of the war, treatening the convoys to Russia and as such putting a huge strain on the aliied naval forces: at one hand requiring heavy escorts for the convoys in case she went on the hunt and on the other hand keeping a large Brittish battle group at constant high allert in case she would head to American waters like the Bismarck.
The Japanese cariers were a mix of older, converted and modern carriers. The main difference compared to the Americans was that the Americans had 2 flight decks, while the Japanese had only 1, which meant the American carrieres could carry much more plains. The Japanese also had the problem that they were building 2 Yamato class battleships which they barely had the recources for, while also building 1 (and having ordered 3) new mordern carriers, which would be much on par with their American counterparts, though still with 1 flight deck and thus some less plain capacity. The Americans started the war with 4 main cariers and about a dozen 'escort carriers' and would produce about 3 more main carriers (not entirely sure her) during the war, which the Japanese could not keep up with. Also the pacific tide changed when the Americans were able to at least partly crack the Japanese code before the battle of Midway. If the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour, the Americans would have likely entered the war after he Japanese invasion of the Philipines (an American puppet at the time). If they hadn't at that time and were indeed unwilling to join the pacific war on their own, the Japanese would be difficult to predict: China (without Russian supprt) or Japan victory? European counterattack after the conclusion of the European theater to reclaim colonies or liberate their former colonies? hard to tell, maybe the Brittish would have gone to take over Japan, leading to a new Brittish-American war?
The reason the Axis navies were in the end "unsuccesfull" is a discussion on its own, though in my opinion comes down to the leaders not listening to the admirals.
there was tea abord those ships, they spilled it, that was the catalyst
About planes in Midway - they include planes that was in Midway airport and they were more then one additional stationary "carrier" in this battle.
All problem with Nagumo dilemma comes exactly from this.
15:30 Yes, the Bismarck as a large surface raider failed, but the British decided that it was *such* a threat to devote *a quarter of their entire Navy* to hunting it down for months.
The idea could have panned out in the early stage of the war but radar probably would have killed it or made it much less viable.
Neither the Bismark nor the Tirpitz was intended to hunt convoys though.
The Advancement of the Aircraft Carriers and Radar made the Battleships of ww1 Absolute.
sinking of Tirpitz proves that fleet in the being doctrine doesn't work anymore
Odd that they aren't including totals for the minor powers, as the commonwealth nations had decent sized fleets by the end of the war. Canada was by default the third or fourth largest navy at the war's end, rivaling that of the Soviet Union
In tonnage,it was definitely larger than that of Soviet Union which was mostly consisted of subs along with very small numbers of destroyers and cruisers.
@@AFT_05G The Soviets had 3 battleships, which would be quite heavy, if antiquated. Tonnage is a bad way to judge - I think, as the Soviet navy's modern ships were mostly destroyers and a few cruisers.
0:50 and getting sunk by the British.
Carrier based naval aviation should be able to attack outside of pitched naval battles
funny thing about Norway Germany tried to invade it by night and capture the current governement head at that time the naval road was armed with coastal defenses wich they where able to bypass it most of it but only one Coastal defense opened fire on the germans wich was a unidentifed target wich result in some ship losts for germany
Germany lost a heavy cruiser to a land-based torpedo launcher from like the 1800s too lmao
@@seangunn4772 and against a bunch of fresh recruits too that got there 1 week ago
@@lordsamuel9548 yeah, recruits or more realistically poorly trained. She was able to be saved, they just couldn't do it. Such things happen in war. Lexington shouldn't have been lost. Taihou shouldn't have been lost. It happened to everyone at least once during the war
I’m surprised that the USS Lexington was sunk, considering that it’s been sitting on the beach of Corpus Christi, Texas for decades as a museum ship
What you're referring to is the Lexington class CV-2, which was sunk in the Battle of the Coral Sea. The Essex class CV-16 Lexington, on the other hand, was a different ship.
I think dockyards should be slots for ships building and mil assigned to them to produce.
Edit: 1 dockyards for subs an destroyers 3 for cruisers and 5 for capital ships.
It would be better if its just one dockyard for all ship classe, you don't need 5 dockyards building 1 ship cuz dockyard is not a factory that produces guns, shells, aircraft, torpedos, radars, etc. Its a waterside area containing docks, workshops, warehouses, and things for maintaining ships
@@anelstarcevic696 My idea was that a dockyards in game represents tonnage worth. Like a big dockyard could do a few DDs at the time or 1 BB.
@@anelstarcevic696 But Multiple Dockyards do make different parts that go into those ships. The Dockyards in HOI4 are really Military Factories designated to produce ships and ship equipment. Like In the USA . The Hull's were Built in Maine. Parts were Built in South Carolina and then the ship was fitted in Brooklyn NY.
This makes more sense tbh. If a country really wanted to supercharge a navy they'd have every part of the ship manufactured away from the shipyards and have that valuable drydock space used solely for piecing together the warship, i'm actually pretty sure the Americans were doing just that during the war because they were able to pump out a whole ass carrier within months
The thing with Tirpitz aka The lonely Queen of the north is that she did basically nothing, attempts to raid the convoys heading to the USSR were made but remained in attemps, the british escort was too heavy and the Tirpitz stayed in a fjord till the RAF nuked her with the tallboys
Zuikaku and Shokaku were more advanced than american Yorktown class since they were purpose built carriers while americans were conversions of battlecruiser hulls.
8:00 Jutland
No the biggest naval battle was done by the romans against the cartheginians
Apparently resistance was reworked and Secret Police Force was nerfed and so was also Civilian Oversight
Maybe they could give a decision that massively improves dockyard construction and output by like 50%+ but also reduces recruitable population and increasingly lowers stability while active to balance?
YESSS, I SUGGESTED THIS VIDEO
They needed to get a hell of a lot of materiel around the world. Hence all the Liberty Ships.
By those figures it appears as if the axis navies had been stronger than the western allies' navies. I have never hear about that before, i wonder how they figured out those numbers.
The WWI one naval battle was that of Skagerrak. Either side claimed it as a victory. The german side sank more vessels than the british. But after the battle returned to the ports and did not leave thema again since the german high command had expected even better outcomes. Which were necessary as Britain outnumbered Germany's navy 3:2 resulting in a need to sink much more british naval power than 1:1 in the high command's eyes.
Well you figure these convoys are in groups traveling under escort so if the Bismark had shown up there wasn't much their escorts could have done to stop it and the convoys would have scattered where submarines could easily hunt the isolated ships.
for peaple to get into navy there should be more perks to boost construction and research of Navy
After seeing a video like this is out be nice if there were a post BBA naval guide
If I understand correctly, the prevailing idea for Japanese carriers was that the planes were great, but it was likely they'd be outnumbered. The carriers reduced their aircraft capacity and added more armor and small guns to compensate, so they would stand more of a chance if they were in direct combat. US carriers had a different logic of maximizing their carriers plane capacity, and supporting them heavily.
I’m pretty sure the Tirpitz spent most of the war hiding in the Norwegian fjords
Bismarck was escorted by One cruiser. It took damage during the engagement with the Hood and the Prince of Wales. The cruiser was damaged had had to withdraw to port. The Hood blew up and the Prince of Wales had to withdraw. The captain of the Bismarck choose to continue the mission alone. Gutsy move in my opinion. Didn't work out.
8:15 Battle of Jutland sea I think
Stellaris has a similar mechanic for focusing on fleets
There is a song about the Tirpitz from Heaven shall burn
I have the feeling nothing unsinkaple is unsinkpale
The battle of midway, the Americans had more planes because there was an airbase on midway, allowing the Americans to fight with more planes
The Japanese built the biggest aircraft carrier ever built at that time, the Shinano
7:27 No at the start of the war, Japan had the superior carrier force.
"You shall not pass!" NAV Plane HOI4.
I recommend the warographics video on Midway. Goes into a lot more detail on why the Japanese lost the pacific theater to the US despite the advantages they held. For example the theroetically should not have been able to take out a dub with only 3 carriers against Japanese zeroes which held a pretty solid advantage on US carrier fighters.
Hmmmm, no mention of the Uboat that sank in 1945 because the captain “incorrectly operated its toilet”.
Trying to outproduce a german submarines with a cheap American convoys is exactly the strategy they used. They took the cheapest and easiest ship design they could come up with and said we will jjst make more of these ships than they can handle.
9:30 Do you mean the battle of jutland in ww1?
Its not about the german doctrine of sending undefended capital ships on raids. The german navy in short didnt have any screening ships that could accompany a capital ship on a long mission. The screening ships had poor range. In addition most of the german ships, up to heavy cruisers, were not seaworthy enough for the atlantic ocean. There are reports that a heavy cruiser got into a storm, well its the north atlantic so what, and got thrown over to one side by a big wave (it was literally on one side) just to be raised upwards again by another wave. German lacked the experience and technology to build really good capital ships. Even the bismarck-class had a lot of flaws and wasnt as good as it seen so often. Of course we can argue about that but just think about the fact that all of her guns were disabled in under 45 minutes (normally a BB fires 2 shots a minute, so only 90 salvos of the BBs). Yeah she was outnumbered but lets have a look here: There were only two Battleships and a bunch of cruisers. This is normal fighting material for a battleship and the fact that the enemy comes in a higher number was "built-in" for every german ship. So a lot of hype for not so much of a battleship-class.
A lot of the naval engineering knowledge Germany had was still stuff from WWI because they hadn't built much in the inter-war period and there wasn't as much "open source" technological sharing going on as with aircraft.
The USSR had much the same problems. They even tried to buy a US battleship to upgrade their fleet. In the end they did get some Italian help in designing their ships (as did Romania).
At the start of the war in the pacific the Imperal Japanese Navy had Aircraft carriers that were superior in almost every way to the American ones, but in a few key differences and I think the largest one was their fire control systems and procedures. Those kept the American ships alfoat and fighting and the Japanese ones to the bottom of the ocean.
And at Midway the American's had more planes because they also had all the planes stationed on the Midway base.
yeah like you have a scale in your production queue like
V
Navy o---o---o---o---oArmy
a balance of power!!!!!!
center is nothing
far right is
+ 0.75% factory output per dockyard
- 0.75% dockyard production per military factory
moderate right is
+ 0.5% factory output per dockyard
- 0.5% dockyard output per factory
moderate left is
+ 0.6% dockyard output per factory
- 0.5% factory output per dockyard
far left is
+ 1% dockyard output per factory
- 0.75% factory output per dockyard
so you take production from dockyard, put it in factory, more factories you have to supply with your dockyards the more it will take from your dockyards.
Fun fact japan used converted carriers through most of the war
Either war economy should boost naval production or you should be able to use pp to boost it instead
When you realize just how many carriers we pumped out in the US 🤣
The fact that capital ships are so expensive and you are only given 5 dockyards to put on them is the most frustrating thing. When you look at the naval arms race between the german empire and britain, it was ruinous for both of them as it was a large drain on their economies and of course hoi4 cant simulate that because you can't spend civilian industry towards getting extra naval production which would make sense but I guess not
1:13
You missed basically all the info in this part because you where eating.
Hey, Question if y'all dont mind me askin. Is it worth it to build anything bigger than cheap light crusiers? it kinda feels like it takes FOREVER to build any kind of ship past light cruisers. Hence why light cruisers typically make up 70-80% of my navy later in the game when I've lost most of my heavy ships and cant build more fast enough to replace them.
If you want a historical justification for this, I would tell you to look up the Jeune Ecole.
Depends on where and what you're fighting, you may as well skip battleships in all cases but you can make good converted hull and 1936 aircraft carriers from the start since the only stat that really matters for them is deck space, even a converted cruiser can carry the latest carrier aircraft (I think even jets, although I haven't tried it with the BBA update that added them). A carrier with carrier CAS is better for invasions than more shore bombardment in my opinion since the damage isn't reduced by the invasion penalty, and is carrier NAVs are effective against enemy capital ships. However if you're only concerned about areas where you can cover your navy with ground aircraft you can skip large ships and just spam out small ones to bait battles where your ground-based bombers can do the heavy lifting for them. My opinion may also change once I've tried focusing on strategic bomber NAVs in the Pacific, they have so much range that it may make carriers pointless.
A couple of wrong misconceptions in your rumblings about Bismarck. The Bismarck was escorted by 4 destroyers and Prinz Eugen. Regarding the 'raid' tactic with surface battleships for Germany, it had been working fine until then, with several tons of merchant ships sunk by rogue cruisers. Bismarck was there to put a threat over them, and force the English navy to mobilize and consume resources like hell in order to protect those merchant ships from the Bismarck.
The Japanese had the most advanced Aircraft Carriers at the start of the war. But they couldnt replace their losses or build a lot of new ones.
Hail Dave the Wise!