|
Post by aeson on Sept 23, 2017 10:40:58 GMT -6
As for the cruisers, would it be conceivable to build extremely inexpensive 2000 ton CLs with high torp capacity, with the intent to hold most of them to allow DN ordering, and the eventual intent to not use them with the fleet but rather on Coastal Patrol? 22 knots would suffice for CP, and if matters warrant they could eventual be equipped to hold mines. This would avoid the prestige hit, even though it could be borne. If the cost of holding 6 or 7 cheap CLs would prohibit ordering the DNs you have called for, then I would ignore my suggestion. The problem I have with building cruisers for ASW and coastal patrol work is that it is not cost effective within the game. A minimal cruiser still costs about as much to build as four minimal minesweepers on the per month basis or as ten minimal minesweepers by total cost, takes about twice as long to build, and will probably cost about as much to maintain as eight minimal minesweepers while fulfilling coastal patrol requirements more or less as well as just one minimal minesweeper. It might win gun duels with submarines far more reliably than a minimal minesweeper, but that's about the only thing it has going for it - aside, perhaps, from a lucky torpedo during a coastal raid, but coastal patrol destroyers can do that too, and while they're more expensive than minimal minesweepers they're still considerably less expensive than a minimal torpedo cruiser. Beyond that, though, even a very minimal 22kn torpedo cruiser looks like it's going to cost about 5.5M/ship whereas a minimal gun cruiser that technically meets my C1909 specification can be built for about 7M/ship. A minimal cruiser that meets my C1909 specification is adequate for light fleet escort and more than adequate for light fleet scout duties and might even be able to win cruiser engagments against e.g. the Japanese Tsushima-class cruisers (25kn 4700t 10x5" 4TT cruisers with 1" belt armor, according to the almanac), especially if it's a pair of the C1909s against a single Tsushima, whereas a 22kn minimal torpedo cruiser is probably not fit for anything but coastal patrol or flag-waving at this point in the game, and since my only colonial possession is in home waters my need for inexpensive flag-waving tonnage is not very great.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 23, 2017 17:47:38 GMT -6
If there's a slot open, Mile High Naval Architecture has a few proposals that may be of interest to the Imperial Chinese Navy. We are a Denver-based design firm that subcontracts construction to yards on the east coast. We believe we can offer cost-competitive, yet revolutionary and world-beating designs making the best use of American technology.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 23, 2017 18:53:46 GMT -6
If there's a slot open, Mile High Naval Architecture has a few proposals that may be of interest to the Imperial Chinese Navy. We are a Denver-based design firm that subcontracts construction to yards on the east coast. We believe we can offer cost-competitive, yet revolutionary and world-beating designs making the best use of American technology. Go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 23, 2017 20:40:26 GMT -6
Mile High Naval Architecture would like to present our proposal for the BB1909 project. We believe that the weight savings gained by placing the entire main armament forward, as well as using more efficient triple turrets, and minimizing armor outside of the machinery spaces and magazines, will allow us to deliver a ship capable of meeting the armament and vertical protection requirements of the BB1909 specification, exceeding the horizontal protection requirements by 50%, and fast enough to run down any existing Russian or Japanese cruiser, all for a cost that we believe the Imperial Chinese Navy will find very competitive. Furthermore, the superimposed B turret, only available from American yards, will allow our design to fire six 13 inch guns over the bow: more than any battleship now afloat can fire on a broadside and perfect for driving the shattered remains of an enemy fleet before you. We would also like to draw attention to the design's anti-torpedo-boat armament: with a total of 24 high-performance 4-inch guns, 12 per broadside, this design will be able to engulf enemy torpedo boats in a hurricane of high-explosive ammunition. EDIT: MHNA has revised its proposal for the BB1909 project. By using a more compact machinery arrangement and eliminating the extended belt and deck altogether, we were able to reduce the weight of the design by a thousand tons, with an attendant savings of nearly the cost of our new C1909 design. We wish to emphasize the cost savings that this design offers. While remaining competitive in price with every other design submitted, we believe that our design can both hold its own in the line of battle and operate as a first-class cruiser, thus increasing the capability that the Imperial Chinese Navy can offer within its budgetary constraints and offering operational flexibility according to the needs of whatever specific conflict China should find itself in. Attachments:MHNA-BB1909.40d (4.94 KB)
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 23, 2017 21:25:08 GMT -6
MHNA would also like to present its C1909 proposal. As American gun manufacturers offer world-class 4 and 7 inch guns we have incorporated these into the design in preference to other types. A main battery of three 7-inch guns on the centerline provides a weight of fire equivalent to the specified broadside without the penalty in weight and cost incurred by duplicating guns on either side, while a secondary battery of 8 unshielded 4-inch guns, 4 per side, supplements the main battery with a higher rate of fire without adding undue weight. Meanwhile, the design is capable of 27 knots, capable of matching any other cruiser in the world. EDIT: MHNA has decided to revise its proposal for C1909. The 7-inch V turret has been removed, as well as one pair of 4-inch guns, and the speed has been reduced to 26 knots. This allows us to fit the ship into a tonnage of just 2100 tons, for a cost of around half of our previous bid. Attachments:
MHNA-C1909.40d (4.87 KB)
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Sept 25, 2017 6:58:57 GMT -6
KAW is prepared to offer its tender for B1909: Schlactschiff 1909 is a first-class modern battleship design based on the all-big-gun concept. It is armed with 10 12" rifles (with the two wing turrets capable of firing across the ship's beam) and bares a top speed of 22kn - capable of pursuing enemy armoured cruisers if need be, and more than capable of escaping or forcing an enemy battleship of the current type to engage. For defence against light surface targets, the design features 14 5" guns mounted in casemates. The coal bunkers have been reduced to allow steaming in Chinese home waters and provide the ship with a massive 125 rounds of ammunition per gun! The armour is well-rounded, with a belt 12" thick at the waterline and 5" on the slope, with a deck between 1.5" and 2.5". The gunhouses are armoured comparably: 12" faces with heavier 3.5" roofs to protect against long-range plunging fire. The casemates' 3" splinter protection plating adds to the armoured belt, giving a combined thickness of 15" in some areas. While the ship is well-protected against long-range fire, KAW recommends the navy utilise this ship at medium range so that the guns may have an easier time targeting the enemy. In total, the Schlactschiff 1909 costs 2.9M marks per month for 2-and-a-half years. At the end of this process, the Imperial Chinese Navy will have a premium capital ship capable of controlling the West Pacific and smashing whatever the Empress' enemies can muster. (Yes, Imperial Germany still hasn't developed a gun larger than 12", or superfiring turrets... Needless to say, I won't be surprised when I lose! ) Attachments:Schlactschiff 1909.40d (5.03 KB)
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Sept 25, 2017 7:13:53 GMT -6
KAW will now present its C1909 proposal: Kreuzer 1909 is a fast scout cruiser intended to be at the vanguard of the fleet or sweeping operations. The vessel has an armament of 10 6" guns, with a broadside of 5 guns each but capable of firing two guns forward and aft, giving the ship formidable firepower in a chase whether hunter or prey. Its speed of 26kn allows it to dictate the terms of the engagement to most other cruisers it will encounter (namely those of France and Russia). It also possesses 4 torpedo tubes to destroy crippled targets or wreak havoc in slow formations, allowing it to double as a convoy raider. Its armour isn't unimpressive either: a belt of 2.5" and deck of 2" over the machinery spaces, with 2" gunshields on the main armament. The price for this adequacy is cruising range: as it is intended principally to serve as a scout for the battlefleet and patrol home waters, provisions have not been made for steaming outside the Northwest Pacific in times of war. If the vessel is to serve outside home waters, it should be deployed there before hostilities commence - and only if provisions can be made for its resupply from port. Nevertheless, KAW is confident the ICN will find a strong candidate in the Kreuzer 1909 design, which has a modest cost of 900,000 marks every month for 20 months, allowing 1-and-a-half such cruisers to be built for every Schlactschiff 1909. (I know, I know, 'perfect weapons are overrated; a large number of good enough weapons are the key to victory', but I just don't have it in me to design a ship which I think is gonna get creamed - especially when China can only build such a small number of ships in the first place. Besides, another way to look at it is this: when the B1909 is completed, China can field 4 new cruisers every 2 years! ) Attachments:Kreuzer 1909.40d (5.12 KB)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 25, 2017 9:41:04 GMT -6
All of the submissions are going to have some flaws - the USA and Germany don't have access to torpedo protection whereas China, France, and Britain can at least use TP1; Britain can put four turrets on the centerline but cannot do a full four-turret superfiring configuration (the USA can put four turrets on the centerline and do a full four-turret superfiring configuration, but neither rimbecano nor theexecuter is making use of an ABVY/ABXY configuration at the time I'm writing this); triple turrets are available in the USA and Britain but are less reliable than twin turrets; France, China, and Germany cannot put more than three turrets on the centerline; and China doesn't have any Q0 heavy guns, main battery wing turrets for guns heavier than 10", or superfiring turrets.
Also, the costs of these cruiser submissions are making me think you guys want me to spend all available funds on the battleship program and just don't want to say so.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Sept 25, 2017 9:51:38 GMT -6
ABVY for big enough Q0 guns was too heavy for displacement / speed / armor.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 25, 2017 10:23:55 GMT -6
ABVY for big enough Q0 guns was too heavy for displacement / speed / armor. That isn't actually true for a battleship that meets the requirements set by the specification, though it may be true for a battleship with the combination of speed, armor, and armament that you submitted. The specification calls for a battleship with a main battery of 11" or heavier guns with broadside equivalent to 6 14" guns; if we restrict ourselves to American Q0 guns, we can use either 11" or 13" guns, and by the equivalency rule I set in the original post that means we'd need about 7 13" or about 11 11" guns capable of bearing on the broadside. The specification also calls for a design speed of at least 20 knots, at least 12 4"/5"/6" guns for defending against destroyers and torpedo boats, and 11" belt, 12" turret face, 2" deck, and 3" turret top armor. Something like the example below would technically meet or exceed every requirement set by the specification while using an ABVY main battery configuration and can be built in American yards in the save file I provided. That being said, exceeding the requirements set by the specifications is by no means a bad thing to do (generally speaking, anyways, though exceeding a cost limit might be inadvisable, especially if no one else does), and while I don't want to encourage it I'm also willing to accept submissions that maybe do not quite meet the requirements issued in all particulars, especially if it turns out the requirement I issued was unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Sept 25, 2017 12:29:26 GMT -6
That ship is ludicrously under armored for a BB that will need to last the entire game...considering your budget restrictions.
Hence my point. I might be able to make a ship with ABVY with 11 inch guns, but they would need to be triples to give you something to refit to better guns later.
So, my design choice to rely on triple guns of 13 inch caliber means you can refit to doubles of higher caliber later, and the armor scheme will be able to survive later game battles.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 25, 2017 13:58:22 GMT -6
All of the submissions are going to have some flaws - the USA and Germany don't have access to torpedo protection whereas China, France, and Britain can at least use TP1; Britain can put four turrets on the centerline but cannot do a full four-turret superfiring configuration (the USA can put four turrets on the centerline and do a full four-turret superfiring configuration, but neither rimbecano nor theexecuter is making use of an ABVY/ABXY configuration at the time I'm writing this); I just find it extremely difficult to justify the dead weight involved in having any turrets aft, and without access to 14" guns in the US, triple turrets are necessary to meet the broadside weight requirement (except maybe with ABCL, which would lead to turrets overlapping in the overhead view and is probably unrealistic IRL) . I'll note that my design meets or exceeds the specification in every respect, including exceeding the specified speed by 5 knots, and is the cheap option. I actually considered some draft designs that came in at around the cost and tonnage of your example ABVY design with speeds no more than a knot slower than my actual submission. I did have a design at around 12k cost that I considered, but it was too painful to let the quality bonuses on the armament go by using 6" instead of 7"/4". Isn't there a French yard playing, and doesn't France have access to Q1 6"? They could probably deliver a good ~12k cruiser design. Or is tension too high after the recent war?
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Sept 25, 2017 14:38:22 GMT -6
I'm glad one of the US yards did the 7in/4in design. I considered it, but didn't think I could make the ship cheap enough without compromising survivability.
The 4in gun is great, but it's penetration ability is still too light compared to the 5in gun, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 25, 2017 15:58:14 GMT -6
One, that was only ever meant to be an example of an ABVY battleship that technically meets or exceeds every requirement set in the specification.
Two, while deck and turret top armor as thin as on the example I posted would become problematic a little too quickly for me to be happy, the rest of the armor is heavy enough to be adequate. Not great, mind you, but adequate, even if I kept the ships around into the 1930s, which is about as long a useful life as can be expected for a 1909 dreadnought battleship anyways, unless perhaps it was built for a rich nation by someone with a huge dock. If by the mid- to late-1930s I cannot scrape up enough funding to replace my very first dreadnought battleship (well, maybe second if you count the Tian Dan), then China will have probably ceased to be competitive as naval power within the game, even measured against the other third-rate powers. Current heavy artillery and late game medium artillery will penetrate the DE/BE armor on both the example design I posted and the design you submitted, and by the 1920s 12" belt armor won't be much better protection against modern heavy artillery than 11" belt armor would be, so that side of things is pretty much a wash, and in my experience CT hits are pretty rare so I don't usually worry about them (on the other hand, CT armor is also usually fairly cheap, so cutting back on it doesn't gain you much).
There is a French yard playing, tensions are low enough that I can order ships from them, and they do have Q1 6" guns.
I'd love to be able to afford to lay down 8 decent general-purpose fleet cruisers to supplement China's nine aging Fu Hsings, but I want a capital ship more than I want good cruisers, and right now China's finances are such that I could afford to get about 1.5 capital ships or about 1 capital ship and three cruisers from the current submissions. I don't really want to lay down a large number of ships that I know that I'm going to have to suspend work on or cancel long before they complete, so I'm saying something to encourage a bit more cost economy in the cruiser submissions seemed in order, even though that means pushing for light cruisers of a kind that I - and probably the rest of you, given what you've been submitting - believe are objectively worse for how the game will typically use them.
I wasn't saying that either your or theexecutor's submission was a bad submission for not using fore-and-aft superfiring pairs, simply pointing out that there wouldn't be a submission with fore-and-aft superfiring pairs since neither of the American yards had chosen to use that configuration.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Sept 25, 2017 17:14:05 GMT -6
Yep...first dreadnoughts are always a bit of a compromise beast.
Maybe we fire up the designer tonight and give you a cheap, 4in gunned cruiser...
After all, I'd rather sacrifice firepower rather than survivability.
And done...though there wasn't as much cost to cut as I'd hoped. Looks like the speed is the predominant money item.
|
|