Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Looking for assistance in ranking WW2 warships (classes)

Discussion in 'Ships & Shipborne Weaponry' started by Zedder, Oct 19, 2015.

  1. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Carronade, awesome. Thanks.

    IWD, you got lots of knowledge. Give it a go. Either simplify your reasoning or post up reasonings for your rankings. Get as in depth as you like, it's all valuable info.

    If you find it hard to simplify, just dumb it down.
     
  2. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    132
    I'd take the type XXI uboat off the list completely. Unproven boat. If you add that, you might as well add P-80's to your aircraft list.
     
  3. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,195
    Likes Received:
    337
    I agree; the ratings for destroyers depend largely on how much weight we give to AA. Zedder's game includes aircraft and particularly naval aircraft, which led me to rate the DP armed destroyers higher. For surface action I would call Yugumo the best of the listed ships.

    British destroyers starting with the Tribals had AA gunfire control incorporated in the Range Finder Director, but they were limited by the elevation of their guns, 40-55 degrees. The Os and four of eight Ps had 4" high-angle guns.

    The German 15cm gun on destroyers looks impressive but did not work out so well in practice, in fact they reverted to the 12.7cm in their last wartime destroyers, so I did not rate the 1936 Zerstorer any better than the 1934.

    Speed, particularly in capital ships, get more attention than it merits in my opinion. It gives one side the option of avoiding action, but that's usually tantamount to abandoning one's mission, except in a few cases like commerce raiding. That leaves the dominant factor in Scharnhorst her uniquely light main armament, so I rated her below all except the least modernized WWI ships.

    As noted earlier, QE modernized was almost as good as a new ship, including a good DP secondary armament.

    Kongo's speed came in handy for accompanying aircraft carriers, but ironically they don't seem to be in the game!
     
  4. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Checking back in... I've been working on something else game'y and haven't looked at this for a few days. I'm gonna go through any info provided for each of the 3 posts and update my lists. I'll repost each and maybe that will fuel another round of discussion. I'll get this done tonight.
     
  5. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Went back over the thread and made some changes to the list. I'm gonna dig in further and do more research as there's still stuff I need to learn. This will happen tomorrow. I updated the aircraft list and I'm feeling better about that one. So.... I'll get to this tomorrow.

    Big improvements so far. Thanks.

    Any suggestions for other forums that would be good to present this to? I want a couple "layers" of validation.

    And since it's a recurring question... aircraft carriers will be introduced in eras 2 and 3. WW2 is era 1. What I'm saying is have plenty more units that I know very little about that I plan on using.
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,725
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'll try to get something on DD's out within the next few days but it's a fair amount of work the way I would do it.
     
  7. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yeah, don't go crazy IWD. You know I'm looking for simplified values. But, I'll gladly accept any info.
     
  8. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    HMS Hood. It's an Admiral class. Only ship of it's class. 1920.Well known ship, but I might drop it as a class. Just going through the spreadsheets now.
     
  9. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Hood was a battlecruiser, not a heavy cruiser. She would be placed in the battleships list alongside Scharnhorst and Kongo.

    And here I was thinking the Admiral class heavy cruiser was the German's Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee.
     
  10. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm ditching it anyways.

    Quick question... I"m working on the reshuffle. Regarding battleships...

    Nelson or Queen Elizabeth?
    Kongo or Nagato?
     
  11. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ok, here's the reshuffle...

    Battleships
    10. Iowa
    10. Yamato
    9. North Carolina
    9. South Dakota (replaced Revenge class)
    8. Bismarck
    7. KGV
    6. QE
    5. Kongo
    4. Scharnhorst
    2. Gangut

    I can trade QE for Nelson and Kongo for Nagato if that makes more sense.

    Destroyers (I removed 5 total destroyers)
    10. Fletcher
    9. Battle
    8. Gleaves
    7. Weapon
    7. Yugumo
    6. Akizuki
    5. Zerstorer 1936
    4. Ognevoy
    3. Gnevny (was listed previously as Type 7)
    1. Leningrad

    Removed are C class (UK), Matsu (JAP), Zerstorer 1934 (GER), Benson (USA), O-Z (UK). All replaced with light cruisers. There's 2 JAP destroyers listed. They could be replaced by Matsu or Kagero if that makes more sense. The 3 soviet destroyers are needed to make all the numbers work.


    Heavy Cruisers
    10. Baltimore
    8. Deutschland
    8. New Orleans
    7. Takao
    5. Mogami
    4. Hipper
    3. Tone
    3. County
    2. Kirov
    1. York (was Admiral class)

    Light Cruisers
    9. Cleveland
    7. Brooklyn (added)
    6. Town
    5. Chapayev (was gorky, but no such thing as gorky class)
    4. Leipzig
    4. Konigsberg (added)
    2. Dido (added)
    2. Agano
    1. Katori (moved from HC)
    1. Adm. Nakhimov

    This section in particular needs feedback on rankings. 5 new units. Not sure how they compare.


    Submarines
    10. Type XXI (yup, using it)
    9. Balao
    8. Type IX
    6. S class (SOV)
    6. Vampire Class (UK)
    5. Type VII
    3. Umpire class (UK)
    3. M class (SOV)
    2. SC class (SOV)
    1. Type A/B/C (JAP)




    You guys see any tweaks that should be made?




    edit... made some rating changes based on feedback below
     
  12. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,195
    Likes Received:
    337
    Not sure why you rate Bismarck above South Dakota, but it's your game ;)

    "trade QE for Nelson and Kongo for Nagato if that makes more sense" - guess it depends what exactly you're trying to do. Nelson or Nagato are more powerful for surface action, or are you looking for a more interesting variety of ships for the game?

    Chapayev carried 6" guns and should be in the same category as Cleveland or Town. I agree with lwd it's a bit silly to class such ships as light cruisers when they're superior to some 8" types. The USN was unusual in making a formal distinction between CAs and CLs; most navies just called them all cruisers. For the game, you might put the New Orleans back into the heavy category.

    Tone, Takao, and Mogami had essentially the same characteristics, for good or bad: uniquely powerful torpedo armament, which could also be a hazard to themselves, light turret armor. Takao and Mogami had more 8" guns than most contemporaries; Tone traded one turret for a couple more floatplanes.

    I'd put Brooklyn above the Town class, only advantage I see for the Towns is the unit machinery arrangement.

    There's very little difference between Leipzig and Konigsberg; I assume you're trying to keep the appropriate number of German ships?

    The Didos were a nice idea, but disappointing in practice. 16 "antiaircraft" cruisers shot down a grand total of 15 aircraft, and seven of those might be credited to one of the two 4.5" gunned ships. Also vulnerable; 2 or 3 were lost to single torpedo hits.
     
  13. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Battleships will hit sea and land
    Destroyers will hit everything
    Heavy Cruisers will hit air and sea
    Light Cruisers will hit air
    Subs will hit sea

    3 units hit air. 4 units hit sea. 2 units hit land.

    I know that the above hitting functions aren't 100% authentic but for the game to play, that's how I have things. I want 5 separate unit types that hit differently.

    So... regarding cruisers... you and IWD have mentioned the grouping of the cruisers is sketchy. I've got 20 ships under cruisers. I'm ok with them being a bit "off" as long as they are the best I can do with what I'm trying to achieve. And the fact that some "light cruisers" are better / rated higher than some heavy cruisers is a good thing for game play.

    With that new knowledge of game play, is there any changes you would make to those groups? I need 10 each. And hopefully the boats listed are the boats used.
     
  14. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'll cave. I'll swap SoDak and Bismarck.

    I'll stick with QE and Kongo. It gives a better range of ships. I don't necessarily need all the best models. I just didn't want to leave out anything that was a no-brainer.

    Chapayev with Cleveland and Town? Unsure. Reference my post above regarding cruiser decisions. I'd need to promote one of the lights to heavy to make that change. Or I could follow your suggestion to reintroduce New Orleans into the HC group. Then drop another american ship to make it work. I'll look at it.

    Japan HC's. I'll switch Mogami with Tone for ratings.

    Brooklyn will get an increase

    German light cruisers... yes. I added Konigsberg for 2 reasons. Cool name and I dropped 5 destroyers total. One of those was the Zerstorer 1934. So I needed another German boat. I'll bump the rating for Konigs and I'll lower the rating for the Dido.
     
  15. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Alrighty... Chapayev...

    So, if I want to demote chapayev to light cruiser and bring back new orleans to HC this is what needs to happen...

    I'll have 1 too many light cruisers. And I'll have 1 too many american ships.

    Normally I could just drop an american light cruiser and call it a day. But Brooklyn is my daughter's name, so that isn't happening. So, I look deeper... I could drop one of the UK light cruisers, or the Katori.

    I then look at american ships included to see what i could drop. There's not many options there. The only thing I can see is one of the american subs. So, let's pretend I drop a US sub. To even things up I need to add a sub from either JAP or UK. Jap has no good sub options. Uk has a good option with the V class sub. So that would be the fix.

    Out -
    Dido or Leander,
    Balao or Gato

    In -
    New Orleans
    V Class sub
    with an added bonus of proper grouping of Chapayev


    Some additions are easy swaps, but some set off a chain reaction of changes. This is just one example. What's the preference?
     
  16. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,546
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Location:
    God's Country
    I think swapping the SoDak's and the Bismark was a correct and accurate decision. I don't understand the CL only hitting air decision so I won't give any feedback on that segment of you ship ratings. The Brooklyns, Clevelands and Mogami's were formidable surface combatants. I'd rate the Mogami's above the Hipper's.

    "The record of the Mogami class ships in surface engagements was very good. They out gunned the heavy cruisers of all other nations. Their heavy torpedo and gun batteries served them well in the days before the U.S. Navy gained absolute air superiority. Their very high speed made them good escorts for the fast carrier task forces. They were well protected, and proved they could take a lot of punishment. Aesthetically, with their trunked funnel, tower superstructure, heavy tripod mainmast, and proliferation of turrets, they just looked mean."
    They were more heavily armed, better armored and faster. The Type 93 Torpedo had more punch and longer range than any of their competitors. As Carronade stated, "for good or bad" they could be a curse or a blessing.
     
  17. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,546
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Location:
    God's Country
    Either Balao or Gato. The Balao's were improved Gato's. Unless dive depth is a modeled characteristic, most of their other characteristics are quite similar. So I don't see there's really a factor to favor one over the other. If dive depth is modelled it depends on what ranking you're looking for, Balao would rank higher.

    If you're going to keep light cruisers only fighting aircraft, the Dido would rank higher than Leander so it depends upon what value you are looking for.
     
  18. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Unless I come up with a better strategy for being able to have 5 different hitting characteristics between the 5 ships types, I guess I'm stuck to the light cruisers hitting just air. So, yes... I'll ditch one of the US subs, I'll ditch Leander and add back New Orleans and include V class UK subs.
     
  19. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Let's try this...

    What is the primary hitting function of...

    Battleships?
    - currently targeting sea and land

    Destroyers?
    - currently targeting air, sea and land

    Heavy Cruisers?
    - currently targeting air and land

    Light Cruisers?
    - currently targeting air

    Subs?
    - currently targeting sea


    I need to have targeting variety for game play. If there's a better way to do it, I'm open to it. Or maybe it's as simple as reshuffling my 20 cruisers into the 2 cruiser categories. Would you say there's 10/20 that make sense to put in a "hits air" category?

    Keep in mind, that I'd like to be able to maintain the 2 categories of cruisers for keeping things clean. The other option is to use one category for cruisers and add something else. Battlecruisers? I honestly don't know which ones are considered battle cruisers and if that's a good idea. I'm guessing it isn't because it probably steals from the battleships list (?)

    Also, I realize any ship is gonna shoot at a passing by ship, but for game play, authenticity needs to be stretched to accomplish the goal.

    Thanks guys.
     
  20. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,195
    Likes Received:
    337
    If it helps, 6" gun cruisers like the Brooklyns were very effective shore bombardment ships, thanks to their high volume of fire.

    Considering light cruisers as AA units brings up the Atlanta class, if you can accommodate another American.

    Katori was more of a training ship than a fighting cruiser, good candidate to drop if it doesn't throw the game off balance.

    Balao and Gato class subs were very similar.

    The British V class sub was very similar to the U. The S and T classes were well thought of, roughly comparable to the Type VII (medium size) and Type IX (large) U-boats, so you might consider one of those.
     

Share This Page