|
Post by Airy W on Sept 11, 2017 7:45:37 GMT -6
But the heavy cruiser of the treaty era was a development of the CL, not the armored cruiser. Reinvent, transitive verb: 1) to make as if for the first time something already invented 2) to remake or redo completely Armored cruisers disappeared during the dreadnought race however the CA was reinvented when heavy cruisers were built.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 14, 2017 11:38:01 GMT -6
it is all wrapped up in the politics of the naval treaties, with Britain wanting unlimited trade protection cruisers and other nations like the US wanting bigger cruisers to sink the trade protection cruisers with... CA is one of the US Navy's two-letter identification codes and originally applied to armored cruisers (since scout cruisers usually had little or no armored belt). After the 8"-gun cruiser category was created the CA label was used because it was handy (and at that time mostly unused) as johnw says. There is a sharp difference between the CAs of WW1 like Black Prince and Blucher, and the 8"-gunned 'heavy' cruiser of the interwar and WW2 periods. The difference between 6"-gunned and 8"-gunned 'treaty' cruisers could be so slight that USS Wichita was a Brooklyn-class light cruiser hull with an 8"-gun armament... but the admirals tended to think of the 'heavy' cruisers as replacement battleships and of the 'light' cruisers as scouts, regardless of size, throw-weight and armor. The 'transition' ship between the CA of WW1 and the CA of WW2 was likely the British 'Hawkins' class. They were 'designed up' from the Birmingham (town) class light cruiser and, while never considered successful despite rebuilds, they formed the basis for the idea of the 'treaty' heavy cruiser. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkins-class_cruiserInterestingly, the US Navy went into WW2 convinced the 8"-gun cruiser was superior and, after the night battles in the south Pacific, concluded the 6"-gun cruiser was better for close-range night-fighting. A 12x6"-gunned cruiser will (in very general terms) throw 360 shells for 36,000 pounds in 5 minutes and a 9x8"-gunned cruiser will throw 180 shells for 36,000 pounds in the same time. For penetration at longer range, take the heavy - for number of hits, take the ship with more gun barrels.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Sept 14, 2017 12:02:29 GMT -6
it is all wrapped up in the politics of the naval treaties, with Britain wanting unlimited trade protection cruisers and other nations like the US wanting bigger cruisers to sink the trade protection cruisers with... CA is one of the US Navy's two-letter identification codes and originally applied to armored cruisers (since scout cruisers usually had little or no armored belt). After the 8"-gun cruiser category was created the CA label was used because it was handy (and at that time mostly unused) as johnw says. There is a sharp difference between the CAs of WW1 like Black Prince and Blucher, and the 8"-gunned 'heavy' cruiser of the interwar and WW2 periods. The difference between 6"-gunned and 8"-gunned 'treaty' cruisers could be so slight that USS Wichita was a Brooklyn-class light cruiser hull with an 8"-gun armament... but the admirals tended to think of the 'heavy' cruisers as replacement battleships and of the 'light' cruisers as scouts, regardless of size, throw-weight and armor. The 'transition' ship between the CA of WW1 and the CA of WW2 was likely the British 'Hawkins' class. They were 'designed up' from the Birmingham (town) class light cruiser and, while never considered successful despite rebuilds, they formed the basis for the idea of the 'treaty' heavy cruiser. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkins-class_cruiserInterestingly, the US Navy went into WW2 convinced the 8"-gun cruiser was superior and, after the night battles in the south Pacific, concluded the 6"-gun cruiser was better for close-range night-fighting. A 12x6"-gunned cruiser will (in very general terms) throw 360 shells for 36,000 pounds in 5 minutes and a 9x8"-gunned cruiser will throw 180 shells for 36,000 pounds in the same time. For penetration at longer range, take the heavy - for number of hits, take the ship with more gun barrels. I believe the Japanese called the Brooklyn and St. Louis Class Light Cruisers "Machine-gun Cruisers" due to the incredible volume of shells they could fire. With 15 guns, each capable of firing 10 shells a minute, they had an insane maximum rate of fire. At Kula Gulf, the USS Helena was lost in part because she expended all of her flash-less powder and she switched to smokeless powder, which had a much more pronounced muzzle flash
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 14, 2017 21:22:50 GMT -6
I have a copy of "The US Navy in WW2", which consists of press reports written during battles, eyewitness accounts, etc. One reporter described a Brooklyn-class at maximum fire as a mechanical loom spitting fire, with barrels dipping to load and rising to fire like cams. Rock-and-roll for a 6" gun is about 6 shells per minute for sustained fire, or one every ten seconds. A crack crew could probably do better, but a good crew could probably sustain that rate of fire until it was over, one way or another. One problem with the Brooklyns was that they, and most other 'treaty' era cruisers, were structurally weak and thinly armored. Fighting a cruiser with 15 guns might have been like wrestling a chainsaw, but if you hit one you hurt it seriously.
Of course, the Japanese were using what was basically a WW1 scout cruiser design, so a Brooklyn or Cleveland would have been, um, 'impressive'.
|
|
|
Post by akizuki on Sept 15, 2017 15:28:50 GMT -6
Just mentioning I've updated the original post with everyone's suggestions and the tech levels. Hopefully this is a good reference for newbies and a convenience for all the old hands.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Sept 15, 2017 18:31:48 GMT -6
ship design 2 lets you build BCs if that's useful
i didn't realize scouting force was only 4th level tactics since usually that comes in the last third of the game or so. my least fav tech since i refuse to control more than 1 TF in the game and it forces me to send a portion of my fleet immediately home to leave me just the 1 TF to control. it also makes me compose my entire fleet of only CL/BC or CL/BB to avoid getting that 2nd TF
yeah i'm a big baby lol
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Sept 16, 2017 8:43:09 GMT -6
ship design 2 lets you build BCs if that's useful That's a bit more marginal because adding that kind of speeds to battleships isn't really viable in the very early part of the game. When it comes to thick deck armor, high speed and powerful secondaries you can only afford to fit two of the three within the dock limit. Without the secondaries, the ship isn't very effective when it's built. It will be useful later when you refit the main guns and fire control but by that time dreadnoughts and newer BCs will exist so it will be a speciality ship that costs a bundle to maintain. Without the deck armor the ship will be useful when it's built but will be made obsolete very quickly, too fragile for a ship of that size. You could ditch the high speed, making it just a fast battleship not a real battlecruiser. I think early fast battleships is a viable strategy but it isn't really a game threshold, just a tweak. If a 24 knot BC is a viable design it would probably work as a 22 knot B as well.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 16, 2017 13:41:53 GMT -6
I'm all for thick decks, but I don't really worry about them in the early game. I simply accept that my early ships will be vulnerable to plunging fire in the late game. By the time I really start getting nervous about them, they're generally getting relegated to secondary theaters anyways (because I reserve my newest ships for the theaters in which my most likely opponents have the most ships).
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Sept 20, 2017 11:23:37 GMT -6
ship design 2 lets you build BCs if that's useful That's a bit more marginal because adding that kind of speeds to battleships isn't really viable in the very early part of the game. ... I don't find this marginal at all. Reaching ship design level 2 allows you to build the first "modern" capital ships and I jump at the chance immediately. Being first out of the gate with BCs gives you a huge advantage in the short term, allowing you to easily win any cruiser battles that include your BCs. Even pathetic 4 main gun BCs with speeds of 25 or 26 knots dominate in this early period. Of course you've got to get yourself into a war during that period to take advantage of the superiority, which doesn't always happen. These early BCs can become a liability when they are selected to fight in battles against newer BCs, so when fast new designs begin to appear I'll typically re-purpose them as garrison ships for overseas possessions where they remain a powerful deterrent to any force that does not contain an enemy BC. BBs are no real threat as even old BCs can usually outrun BBs in battle until the late game. They don't need to win battles but simply need to keep station in the region to remain a deterrent to enemy invasion.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 20, 2017 14:15:50 GMT -6
While I do like building them, I wouldn't exactly call a Tsukuba-type design "modern".
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Sept 20, 2017 19:25:51 GMT -6
Even pathetic 4 main gun BCs with speeds of 25 or 26 knots dominate in this early period. I totally agree that they can dominate before dreadnought. I've played that game: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1122/peace-security-americaarBut the design only kicks butt until the first dreadnought sets sail. As soon as that happens my Rangers stop being world beaters and start being extremely inefficient BCs, 22 kTon cruiser hunters whose job could be done by a 16 kTon cruiser hunter. If I laid down a 4x11, 26 knot battlecruiser in 1910, they would cost maybe 20 million less then the Rangers and save me a million and a half every year in maintenance (early BCs need big engines and engines are expensive on early BCs). If it hadn't been for the treaty, their moment in the sun would have lasted for a year. Expanding dockyards every january would allow an oversized BC to be laid down in January of 1903, giving it another year and a half of dominance but then the hangover is even worse, you've plowed even more money into even bigger engines that are still going to age poorly. Battlecruisers are great, probably the most fun ships in the game. But that doesn't mean that as soon as you can build the class it's awesome. All the techs you need for BB you also need for BCs.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 20, 2017 21:17:34 GMT -6
The thing is, even when the first dreadnought sets sail, most of the capital ships in the world are still predreadnoughts. It takes a few years before dreadnoughts are available in sufficient numbers that Tsukubas have to be relegated to secondary duties. And even when they are, they still dominate over other legacy types in a colonial role: both old cruisers and predreadnoughts.
That is, in general, where the advantage of a well-built battlecruiser lies whatever the era: it functions both as an element of the battle line and as a cruiser hunter, saving you the coat of building both.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Sept 21, 2017 1:21:32 GMT -6
That is, in general, where the advantage of a well-built battlecruiser lies whatever the era: it functions both as an element of the battle line and as a cruiser hunter, saving you the coat of building both. Cost of my 1903 battleship: 62 million Cost of a 1903 CA with 26 knot speed: 48 million Cost of building my 1903 battleship as a 26 knot BC: 123 million, if it were possible to build without sacrificing weapons or armor, which it is not So either you are saving negative 10 million dollars, or you are getting a ship which will not serve on the battle line as well But wait, there's more! See, I dont actually want a 26 knot CA in 1903, I have no need for that speed and my 1899 CA works just fine. And in 1908 my 1903 B is going on reserve because the battleship I started building in 1905 will be ready. I will be able to afford this because my ships aren't ridiculously expensive. You said that you put your BCs onto colony duty to save money once they are withdrawn from the line. Well for me that's in 1908. So that means that until 1908 anything my CA is doing is essentially being done gratis, the BC wouldn't be providing that. So instead of comparing it to a 26 knot CA built in 1903, it should be a CA laid down in 1905. So let's rejigger the costs to keep in mind the role the BC is filling later on: Cost of my 1903 battleship: 62 million Cost of my 1905 cruiser with 27 knot speed and a higher ROF: 46 million Cost 1903 BC: 123 million Cost of replacing obsolete guns on 1903 BC: 13 million So yeah, congrats on saving yourself the cost of a 46 million dollar cruiser. All you needed to do was spend 74 million dollars more to do it. Oh and that's not even getting into the extra maintenance you incurred, about 300k a month for 5 years... Huh, another 18 million. You know what they say. 18 million here, 18 million there, pretty soon you are talking real money.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Sept 21, 2017 11:12:16 GMT -6
There is certainly lots of room to debate whether early BCs are worthwhile from a monetary or military standpoint (and I'll admit my post unfortunately rekindled that old debate), but my point was that reaching level 2 ship design and achieving the ability to build BCs qualifies as a threshold technology and not an insignificant one. You might not want to personally take advantage of this new technology, but it does provide you the with ability to design and build a whole new class of ships that was not available before. That is the essence of a threshold technology.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Sept 21, 2017 11:44:07 GMT -6
My definition of a threshold technology is a tech that means the power of your ships increase drastically.
|
|