Modern BB v Old BB

[Cavalry Corp]

My opponent mentions old vis new modern BB several times.

Is there any difference in the game I was wondering?

I assume the ratings are there. So what is the import factors for BB?

Gun and rate of fire. What BB are the best in the game??
Tougness and armour
speed
Crew and commander quality
radar - does radar make any difference in the day?

What are the most important factors above?

Michael

[wneumann]

In general… newer BB’s are faster, have considerably more AA and have improved radar. This particularly true of newer US BB (Washington, South Dakota and Iowa classes) entering the game in late ’42 and after. Unless you absolutely need to do otherwise, newer and faster BB should be escorting CV’s as much as possible (if not exclusively). Newer BB are very capable in surface combat but more effectively employed as carrier escorts. Older BB types are slower and have much less AA firepower – they do receive advanced radar but get it later on in the campaign. The older BB types are best suited for surface combat and bombardment tasks. Older BB are too slow to keep up with carriers, they will actually slow down a carrier TF –basically, any ship with a rated speed below 28 kts should not be in a task force with CV’s unless you have nothing else available. Escort carriers are slower so my previous “rule of thumb” applies not as much.

Beyond US BB’s, the same largely applies to the British. By late 1943, Prince of Wales is quite usable as a carrier escort after applying its ship upgrades (more AA and improved radar). Renown (but not Repulse) falls into the same category – Repulse does not upgrade to the extent Renown does.

Also keep in mind much of what’s said here also applies to CA and CL.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Speed:
BBs missions by 1940s are two: Escort and shore bombardment.
Your old BBs (specially for the US) are too slow for escorting the fast components of the fleet (CVs), so you should use them to escort invasion fleets and to bombard (they are great againts low caliber coastal guns).

[Cavalry Corp]

Thanks guys but mY questions related to surface actions BB V BB.
Sorry that was not clear.

[Amoral]

I think that it is important to note that there is no mechanical difference in the game engine between new and old BBs. The only differences are in the database. To that end having speed and having radar are both very important in surface actions, and modern BBs are more likely to have both.

[tocaff]

New BBs will tear up older BBs as the guns tend to be more powerful and faster firing while the speed is greater making them harder to hit and the armor is better limiting the damage an opponent can dish out. Of course numbers can be equalizers and then we get into those lucky, critical hits.

In a surface battle speed can dictate if action takes place or not and if it does normally the faster side has an advantage. Also having radar or better radar can determine if the enemy is spotted or not and he who spots first has an advantage.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

My opponent mentions old vis new modern BB several times.

Is there any difference in the game I was wondering?

I assume the ratings are there. So what is the import factors for BB?

Gun and rate of fire. What BB are the best in the game??
Tougness and armour
speed
Crew and commander quality
radar - does radar make any difference in the day?

What are the most important factors above?

Michael

1. radar
2. toughness and gun caliber
3 speed
4 crew quality
5 leadership

My opinion for what it is worth. A modern, radar equipped Allied BB with an average crew and leader will still come out on top of a Japanese BBs most of the time. That said, I try to avoid BB to BB surface combat. BBs take forever to mend and even if you win the fight, you are losing valuable assets that have other purposes. As the Allies, I look to kill or damage Japanese BBs with torpedoes. You won't sink the Yamato with three torpedo hits but you won't see her for a year and a half afterwards. Usually that is all you need.

Plus the very slow old Allied BBs are total torpedo bait. Why would you play into the Japanese player's strongest asset?

[geofflambert]

This is likely to be irrelevant to the game, but Adm. Beatty at the Battle of Jutland said something to the effect of 'There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!'. This referenced the issue in the British BCs which were relatively state-of-the-art at the time that they tended to blow to bits. Because of the design of the barbette elevators, the flash of an explosion in a turret was far too likely to reach down to the cordite loading room. I expect they re-engineered these old BB/BCs by WWII.

[tocaff]

The RN was obsessed with a high rate of fire. The powder bags were handled manually and the crews "cheated" by skirting the safety procedures which allowed the flash to burn said bags stacked where they shouldn't have been and it caused disaster.

[Cavalry Corp]

Can I ask if RADAR helps in day time combat?

[Jones944]

Day time clear weather? Maybe not so much.

Day time inclement weather, definitely.

Visual spotting range maxes out at 35,000 yards or so on a perfect day. Radar will surpass that in nearly all conditions is my understanding. He who spots first dictates the encounter.

[sandlance]

Radar gives a much more precise range than and optical sight even under ideal conditions. The USN used stadiameter range finders. This is two images of the taget placed one above the other. You dialed in the Known Masthead height of the target, then you placed the water line of the upper image on the masthead of the lower image, and the read the range. you can imaqine how hard this is when ownship and the target are both moving in three dimensions at once. Radar removed all of the inherant error. By the middle of the war Radar Gun Fire Control was the primary source and Optical was the back-up.
S.Nelson FTG1(ss)ret

[BattleMoose]

At Jutland I was under the impression that safety procedures for the loading and firing of the main guns were not followed. Magazine bulkheads were left open and all other bulkheads leading to the main guns, so a hit on a British ship was much more likely to cause a magazine explosion.

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is likely to be irrelevant to the game, but Adm. Beatty at the Battle of Jutland said something to the effect of 'There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!'. This referenced the issue in the British BCs which were relatively state-of-the-art at the time that they tended to blow to bits. Because of the design of the barbette elevators, the flash of an explosion in a turret was far too likely to reach down to the cordite loading room. I expect they re-engineered these old BB/BCs by WWII.

The loss of the British battlecruisers at Jutland was mostly due to the instability of British cordite at the time. The German BC Seydlitz suffered the same type of casualty at Dogger Bank, but the powder burned rather than exploded. German flash protection was improved as a result of that experience, but the British had to wait until Jutland for that lesson. After Jutland, the RN improved their flash protection and replaced the cordite with more stable propellants, but those improvements weren't finished until 1918.

When the British inspected the surrendered German battleships after the armistice, they concluded that German flash protection was inadequate compared to the improved British flash protection.

[ny59giants]

I use my old BBs in three ways - within Amphib TF to soak up CD hits, in BB TF to soften up the defenders, and with my growing number of CVEs in their TFs. Since the Allies get over 90 CVEs, they could use some more AA help and be a torpedo magnet to some extent.

[Cavalry Corp]

ORIGINAL: Jones944

Day time clear weather? Maybe not so much.

Day time inclement weather, definitely.

Visual spotting range maxes out at 35,000 yards or so on a perfect day. Radar will surpass that in nearly all conditions is my understanding. He who spots first dictates the encounter.

OK I see so anything less than 35,000 there will be some help.

[geofflambert]

Another way to put it, at Surigajo Straights at night US radar fire control was superior to Japanese visual fire control in broad daylight with clear skies and the sun at your back. The US went into rapid fire immediately.

[margeorg]

Re: "This referenced the issue in the British BCs which were relatively state-of-the-art at the time that they tended to blow to bits".

British BC´s were definitely NOT state-of-the-art during WW-I. Their armour protection was much thinner than comparable german designs (esp. Seydlitz and the Derfflinger class), their internal compartment separations left much to desired, and their distance-measuring equipment for fire control was not top-notch, compared to the Zeiss equipment on german ships. Even BC Tiger was way behind the Derfflinger class ...

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: margeorg

Re: "This referenced the issue in the British BCs which were relatively state-of-the-art at the time that they tended to blow to bits".

British BC´s were definitely NOT state-of-the-art during WW-I. Their armour protection was much thinner than comparable german designs (esp. Seydlitz and the Derfflinger class), their internal compartment separations left much to desired, and their distance-measuring equipment for fire control was not top-notch, compared to the Zeiss equipment on german ships. Even BC Tiger was way behind the Derfflinger class ...

On the other hand, their firepower (especially once they got working shells) was notably better, and with aforementioned shells would have rendered any protection advantage on the German BC's meaningless. They were also designed for long range operations with crew spaces to match - the German BC's like their BB's were designed to operate in the North Sea or North Atlantic at best, and made do with less. Being on average 1-1.5 knots faster is fairly nice too, provided its used right (ie. not to charge into the maw of the HSF..)

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: margeorg

Re: "This referenced the issue in the British BCs which were relatively state-of-the-art at the time that they tended to blow to bits".

British BC´s were definitely NOT state-of-the-art during WW-I. Their armour protection was much thinner than comparable german designs (esp. Seydlitz and the Derfflinger class), their internal compartment separations left much to desired, and their distance-measuring equipment for fire control was not top-notch, compared to the Zeiss equipment on german ships. Even BC Tiger was way behind the Derfflinger class ...

I meant as far as the British knew.