|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 30, 2017 5:33:43 GMT -6
Admirals, Captains, good morning. [In-game it is currently March 1907.] As you are no doubt aware, the US is well behind most of the other major navies in building and commissioning all-big-gun battleships and battlecruisers but Admiral Raleigh is finally convinced that all of the required technologies have matured enough for the US Navy to build the world's most powerful battleship. All of the necessary technologies; steam turbines, oil-firing boilers, four centerline turrets, a dedicated torpedo protection system are ready with one exception. Our engineers at the Naval Gun Factory have been unable to provide an effective 12 inch or 13 inch gun design (both are currently at -1 quality). This despite their fantastic success with the 11 inch/50 Mark 6 (+1 quality). The following data represents the capabilities of our battleship caliber weapons using the current technology for fire control and armor piercing shells. The admiral feels we can no longer delay beginning construction on what will be the foundation of our new fleet and has had four designs drawn up for your consideration. One design each armed with 12 inch or 13 inch main guns and 4 inch secondaries and two 11 inch main gun designs. One 11 inch design has additional armor above the standard set by the 12 inch design and 4 inch secondaries; the other has a more modest improvement in armor but increases the secondary guns to 6 inches in caliber. The Admiral looks forward to reading any comments the Board has on the subject before he authorizes the final design. Very Respectfully, Commander Durham, USN [The 12 inch gun design is really more of a baseline or a reference. To choose it I would have to be gambling that I would eventually get 12 inch +1 guns and that then I'd still be willing to spend the money to upgrade them. The 11 inch gun is just better than the 12 inch gun I have now for significantly less weight.] [Edit - I had to fix the 11 inch Firepower version, I forgot to include anti-destroyer armament first time around.]
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 30, 2017 5:56:05 GMT -6
As far as intelligence on Foreign designs, here is what I know: The UK is the only nation to have completed BB/BC designated ships so far. (I don't count my Memphis-class armored cruisers that have 11 inch guns which causes them to be designated in-game as BC's) The UK currently has three 22,200 ton Albion-class BB's under construction. I'm assuming those are going to be true dreadnought types. No idea of the others although I'm pretty sure because of when the German Westfalen's were started that they are simple three-turret designs and not true dreadnoughts (all 7 German BB's are the same class). The UK and France have access to 14 inch guns; Germany and Russia 13 inch guns; Japan and Italy 12 inch guns.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Nov 30, 2017 8:29:20 GMT -6
The British Dreadnoughts are largely capable of repelling any firepower our designs could muster against them, except at extreme range. With this in mind, the only armour we can penetrate at extreme range is the horizontal deck armour. Given we can expect the British to have superiority in gun quality, I would recommend we focus on long-range gunnery. As such, the 11" firepower design seems the most suitable for our purposes at present. The difference in penetration to our 13" gun is negligible and it has vastly superior range. Furthermore, the armour gains will be valuable against the guns of our opponents and the 6" secondary armament will ensure survivability against smaller and/or faster warships.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 30, 2017 8:55:29 GMT -6
Quite interesting, I have just the opposite view. The costs difference between variance is negligible.
I can see that the difference in gun penetration and range between 11"+1 and 13"-1 variant is minimal, the difference in armor is quite small too in opposite direction. However main difference is damage potential of 13" guns vs. 11" guns on unarmored part of the ships which is fundamental, approximately 65 % higher.
We need to take into consideration the situation in 3 years ahead and further. They would be probably small time period where the armor could help however good tactics could adapt the situation and the penetration of 13" guns would be in future better than 11" guns. After this short time period however we expect that armor scheme would be absolute and 13" guns would still have some good damage potential which would be not case of 11" guns.
I recommend 13" guns as the main advantage of 65 % higher weight of broadside.
Just small note. If the design was battlecruiser I would recommend 11" guns as there would be fine against enemy battlecruisers, however the armor of battleships is another level.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 30, 2017 9:06:00 GMT -6
Is the Admiral committed to 21 knots and an 8 gun broadside? If so, then by economy perhaps 8 11" armed ships could be completed by the time superior batteries encourage the next generation. If not, then a faster battle-line may be an additional argument should a 22+ knot ship be drawn up.
I would avoid using the larger caliber batteries, as replacing them once decent marks become available would be expensive, and the inferiority of their armament would rankle over time. I fully acknowledge the weight of shell argument though, and recommend 11" gunned ships only to such point as an acceptable 13" or greater gun is obtained.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2017 9:21:18 GMT -6
11" for me. Q -1 guns are just not worth the weight.
However... 11" shells are pea shooters. I'd go for an extra pair of wing turrets or heavy secondaries.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 30, 2017 12:31:06 GMT -6
Thank you all for the interesting feedback. VAdm. skwabie 's recommendation has led to a preliminary design which adds two additional 11 inch wing turrets. Currently, our architects have not worked out the details for performing cross-deck fire however it makes sense to place the turrets in the appropriate positions should the technical hurdles be worked out later. The design provides for a ten and possible future twelve gun broadside. However, maintaining the same speed and displacement as the other designs means that the additional turrets require the removal of 2,453 tons of armor to not be considered overweight. That puts the armor protection slightly below the 13 inch armed version. Still adequate but with much less margin for future improvements in armor piercing technology. [There are four AP techs nominally set to be researched in the next five game years.] VAdm. garrisonchisholm , yes the Admiral is set on 21 knots as the new battleline speed. The Admiral believes that 21 knots is sufficient to control the battlespace against earlier, slower, reciprocating engined battleships and faster speeds will unnecessarily allocate more tonnage to the propulsion machinery and correspondingly less tonnage to the weapons and protections systems. Using the 12 inch gun armed version, raising the speed to 22 knots required the propulsion machinery to be 196 tons heavier. That could be made up by making the main belt one-half inch thinner with no reserve tonnage left available. Not a great deal but not worth the tradeoff in the admiral's opinion. [Really it's probably just a nostalgia thing. I like 21 knots because it was the historical standard for the Standards.] VAdm. babylon218 and VAdm. dorn have both made an excellent analysis of the problem while coming to opposite conclusions. While initially leaning towards the 11 inch version with the additional firepower of a heavier secondary battery, I believe Vadm. dorn has swayed the admiral by focusing on the importance of the additional hitting power of the larger shell. The Admiral again conveys his appreciation and respect for the General Board's time and expertise and is confident that their efforts have ensured the safety and prosperity of our great Republic in the coming years. Edit - I should point out that I don't have triple turrets or 5+centerline turrets researched yet. Seriously, thanks for the comments, I really enjoy these discussions and it helps to get others' insights.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2017 13:00:12 GMT -6
MEMORANDUM TO: Bcoopactual FROM: Oldpop2000 SUBJECT: Wing Turrets As the Chief Designer for the Office of Naval Construction I recommend eliminating wing turrets. Our research in testing at our proving grounds, in the David Taylor Testing tanks and war games at the Naval War College shows that in combat they are of limited use due to blast effects on the forward turrets and the bridge area especially in stern chases. They cause weight and balance issue along with possibly increased risks of detonation due to the proximity of the powder near the beams of the ships. They can also have an effect on the placement of the boilers, turbines. We also found that by replacing the wing turrets with one single turret in centerline amidships reduced the cost of the ship and reduced the blast effects. However, we feel that superimposed turrets are the best solution. The General Board has allowed me to offer designs via our warship design software to provide you with any assistance. Respectfully, Oldpop2000, Chief Designer ONC
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Nov 30, 2017 13:11:45 GMT -6
What's the expected service life of these ships? The farther out it extends the better the 13" gun looks. This is doubly so if you expect a treaty to restrict replacement.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 30, 2017 13:47:08 GMT -6
What's the expected service life of these ships? The farther out it extends the better the 13" gun looks. This is doubly so if you expect a treaty to restrict replacement. Excellent question sir. In general, I scrap my legacy fleet pretty quick. Usually the legacy fleet is all gone, except for DD's, by sometime in 1912 but I don't normally scrap my dreadnoughts. Only if I have so many more modern ones that I can afford to send some to protect Southeast Asia would I decommission my early dreadnoughts. So assume they will be in service through at least 1922 in a game where I usually stop at the normal point, 1926. And naval limitation treaties are like the Spanish Inquisition. I never expect those. I always fight getting an arms treaty. Seeing a ship scrapped that was 3 months from completion is probably the most frustrating event in the game. Or a close second to coastal raids where they put the target inside a harbor's minefield and all you have is a CL. At night, in the rain. UGH. Adm. oldpop2000 , always a pleasure to hear from the ONC's chief. In reality all of those things are excellent points although I don't believe that most of them apply in-game. I could be wrong. The game is very simple on the surface but the more we get to look at the internals the more evidence there is of Swiss watch levels of craftsmanship. In the end, I doubt I will go with that design. 2,400 tons of armor for what amounts to two additional gun barrels per side just isn't an acceptable trade-off at first glance. But it was an outside-of-the-box idea for what was already a 4x2 design so I wanted to take a look at it. And I added it as an edit but I don't have triple turrets or 5+ centerline turrets researched yet.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 30, 2017 14:17:49 GMT -6
I'm usually all for the bigger guns, but with the 12" and 13" guns at Q-1 and the 11" at Q+1 I'll have to give my support to the 11" proposals, with preference for the 6x2x11" proposal generated in response to VAdm. skwabie's recommendations since it's the only one with a main battery broadside comparable to that of the British Mars-class battleships and may become superior with some modifications to the firing arcs of the wing batteries. I would however be curious to know if a smaller 4x2x11" design with comparable armor to the 6x2x11" design might suit the Navy's needs well enough while awaiting development of 12", 13", or heavier guns of suitable quality, as the savings gained thereby might allow the Navy to begin work on a battlecruiser comparable or superior to the ~21,000t vessels in service with or under construction by the other powers, or on whatever other project the Navy deems appropriate.
I would also be interested to know if the Navy is set on a battleship program, as it seems unlikely that any power other than Great Britain could contest control of the seas with the existing American battle line in home waters for at least another few years without significant risk of taking unacceptable losses to relatively minor damage for lack of nearby friendly bases, and a relatively small main battery of 11" guns seems more appropriately matched against battlecruisers or armored cruisers than against battleships carrying comparable numbers of heavier guns.
Personally, I don't usually find re-gunning early battleships to be all that worthwhile except when a treaty prevents me from building a replacement. While the overall cost of a reconstruction is less than that of building an entirely new ship, the monthly costs tend to be comparable, and as a result you are often able to afford to build a new ship if you can afford to re-gun an old one.
I've never found 8x11" main batteries to be a very satisfactory armament for a battleship, especially if their contemporaries in the navies of the other powers have comparable numbers of heavier guns. I am sure it can work, and maybe the extra 2" of armor will prove better than the 2-4 additional guns in the wing turrets, but I find that 11" guns should either be for stopgap vessels, which I prefer to be relatively cheap, or for vessels where you cannot see the deck due to all the gun barrels.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2017 15:02:03 GMT -6
What's the expected service life of these ships? The farther out it extends the better the 13" gun looks. This is doubly so if you expect a treaty to restrict replacement. ..... Adm. oldpop2000 , always a pleasure to hear from the ONC's chief. In reality all of those things are excellent points although I don't believe that most of them apply in-game. I could be wrong. The game is very simple on the surface but the more we get to look at the internals the more evidence there is of Swiss watch levels of craftsmanship. In the end, I doubt I will go with that design. 2,400 tons of armor for what amounts to two additional gun barrels per side just isn't an acceptable trade-off at first glance. But it was an outside-of-the-box idea for what was already a 4x2 design so I wanted to take a look at it. And I added it as an edit but I don't have triple turrets or 5+ centerline turrets researched yet. I and my team approve of your decision but remind you that your design will have to pass through the General Board, CNO, SecNav, Secretary of War and of course.... The Congress then the President. Have fun...
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 30, 2017 15:35:13 GMT -6
My suggestion would be to take version 4 - the 11" firepower model - and consolidate the secondary and tertiary batteries into a 5" battery. Any tonnage saved could be used for thickening the ends of the belt armor or possibly for another knot of speed.
Age usually brings the need to add devices, so 40 tons spare seems a little light. 100 tons is my usual margin for a capital ship. Without sufficient reserve, you will be taking off secondary/tertiary guns to improve gunnery systems.
Now, I like the 11" design with wing turrets - 11" gunfire is effective if you have enough of it. But my honest assessment, given that you plan to scrap legacy ships quickly, is to go with the 8x11" armament, reasonable protection and speed, and reduce the tonnage in favor of building more of them. Until you get some gunnery improvements, you are unlikely to be having decisive battles; I think, therefore, number of hulls temporarily outweighs individual quality.
So my final advice is to reduce the secondary battery to 5", eliminate the tertiary, reduce the tonnage by that and by thinning the armor a bit, and see if you can produce a cheaper design to be produced in greater quality.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2017 18:11:50 GMT -6
Admirals, Captains, good morning. [In-game it is currently March 1907.] As you are no doubt aware, the US is well behind most of the other major navies in building and commissioning all-big-gun battleships and battlecruisers but Admiral Raleigh is finally convinced that all of the required technologies have matured enough for the US Navy to build the world's most powerful battleship. All of the necessary technologies; steam turbines, oil-firing boilers, four centerline turrets, a dedicated torpedo protection system are ready with one exception. Our engineers at the Naval Gun Factory have been unable to provide an effective 12 inch or 13 inch gun design (both are currently at -1 quality). This despite their fantastic success with the 11 inch/50 Mark 6 (+1 quality). The following data represents the capabilities of our battleship caliber weapons using the current technology for fire control and armor piercing shells. The admiral feels we can no longer delay beginning construction on what will be the foundation of our new fleet and has had four designs drawn up for your consideration. One design each armed with 12 inch or 13 inch main guns and 4 inch secondaries and two 11 inch main gun designs. One 11 inch design has additional armor above the standard set by the 12 inch design and 4 inch secondaries; the other has a more modest improvement in armor but increases the secondary guns to 6 inches in caliber. The Admiral looks forward to reading any comments the Board has on the subject before he authorizes the final design. Very Respectfully, Commander Durham, USN [The 12 inch gun design is really more of a baseline or a reference. To choose it I would have to be gambling that I would eventually get 12 inch +1 guns and that then I'd still be willing to spend the money to upgrade them. The 11 inch gun is just better than the 12 inch gun I have now for significantly less weight.] [Edit - I had to fix the 11 inch Firepower version, I forgot to include anti-destroyer armament first time around.] My design team has examined the four designs and we believe that the 11 inch guns with the 6 inch. secondary's is the better choice. However, increasing the rounds per gun up to at least 150 is important. The deck armor is too thin, I would try to increase it at least one or two inches. The turret tops are also too thin, increase them to at least 6 inches. You should try to increase the displacement to 25,000 tons to compensate. It is going to be difficult to get 21 knots out of this ship with these new specifications but one should attempt it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 30, 2017 18:24:42 GMT -6
I would also be interested to know if the Navy is set on a battleship program, as it seems unlikely that any power other than Great Britain could contest control of the seas with the existing American battle line in home waters for at least another few years without significant risk of taking unacceptable losses to relatively minor damage for lack of nearby friendly bases, and a relatively small main battery of 11" guns seems more appropriately matched against battlecruisers or armored cruisers than against battleships carrying comparable numbers of heavier guns. No, I don't 'need' to build a battleship class right now but it's a shaky no. I fought a three year war with Germany and Russia that ended about 5 months ago. So current tensions are low. But in the middle part of the war the two combined were killing me in the merchant warfare arena. The downside of my quality over quantity cruiser philosophy was rearing its ugly head. I didn't have the numbers to both defend my ocean areas and effectively go on the attack raiding his own merchantmen. At one point I actually got the crews join protests and minor mutinies message. Fortunately, I won just enough battles to stave off collapse and got Russia to revolt first. I negotiated for Finland's independence in exchange for basing and mineral rights for 99 years and sent my fleet to Europe. Once Russia was out, the pressure and unrest eased up and I got Germany on the defensive. I was able to take the Bismarck Archipelago and Caroline Islands. The one chance for a Jutland was ruined by rain and darkness but overall I won most of the battles up until the last two months. The last two months of the war I lost an armored cruiser each month. One was torpedoed and had a magazine explode while a part of the support forces which meant that it happened off screen and I never had any control over or even saw anything other than the message of the torpedo hit itself until after I read the log. The last month I was in a lone CA on a coastal raid mission and just ran into a random mine north of the Frisian Islands. Sank like a rock. Fortunately the Germans were beyond making a comeback and next turn sued for peace and I got a 4 point win. I took Saipan to finish the sweep of Southeast Asia and the other three as reparations to boost the economy. I went off on a tangent but what I had set out to say was during the time where I usually build a three-turret semi-dreadnought to complete my pre-dreadnought fleet before switching to true dreadnoughts I instead decided to build multiple classes of cruisers to boost my numbers. So of the sixteen battleships in my fleet, twelve are legacy designs, eight are less than 13,000 tons and all of them are simple two-turret designs. If I get into another war in the next 3-4 years my battleships probably won't be that effective against even the modest three-turret designs. I could go with an 11 inch gun dreadnought battlecruiser design in the interim but there's no guarantee that I will see improvement in my 12 and 13 inch guns and if not, two years later I'm in the same boat but in much worse trouble. I and my team approve of your decision but remind you that your design will have to pass through the General Board, CNO, SecNav, Secretary of War and of course.... The Congress then the President. Have fun... Ha, I just won a war against two European navies. My approval rating is higher than those guys. I'm confident the final design I submit will be approved. My suggestion would be to take version 4 - the 11" firepower model - and consolidate the secondary and tertiary batteries into a 5" battery. Any tonnage saved could be used for thickening the ends of the belt armor or possibly for another knot of speed. Age usually brings the need to add devices, so 40 tons spare seems a little light. 100 tons is my usual margin for a capital ship. Without sufficient reserve, you will be taking off secondary/tertiary guns to improve gunnery systems. Now, I like the 11" design with wing turrets - 11" gunfire is effective if you have enough of it. But my honest assessment, given that you plan to scrap legacy ships quickly, is to go with the 8x11" armament, reasonable protection and speed, and reduce the tonnage in favor of building more of them. Until you get some gunnery improvements, you are unlikely to be having decisive battles; I think, therefore, number of hulls temporarily outweighs individual quality. So my final advice is to reduce the secondary battery to 5", eliminate the tertiary, reduce the tonnage by that and by thinning the armor a bit, and see if you can produce a cheaper design to be produced in greater quality. I really like the 6" over the 5" for anti-cruiser work and the 4" (+1) is very effective against destroyers but in terms of overall effectiveness you are probably right. Well I say that but the weight savings probably wouldn't be as much as you might think because those tertiary guns are unarmored where every secondary gun that I go back and add also has to factor in the weight of its armor to the total. I would have more total barrels this way I think than if I had one combined caliber in the secondaries. I'll have to experiment in the ship designer. My design team has examined the four designs and we believe that the 11 inch guns with the 6 inch. secondary's is the better choice. However, increasing the rounds per gun up to at least 150 is important. The deck armor is too thin, I would try to increase it at least one or two inches. The turret tops are also too thin, increase them to at least 6 inches. You should try to increase the displacement to 25,000 tons to compensate. It is going to be difficult to get 21 knots out of this ship with these new specifications but one should attempt it. I'll use the reserve tonnage to add ammo to the final design and then remove it when I add new fire control. Not how you want to do it in the real world (adding top weight with Directors and compensating by removing bottom weight from the magazines) but it works in-game. I feel that 4+ inch decks are way too much weight for a ship built in this phase of the game. I know I said I was planning on using them until the 1920's but I'm not going to have them on the front line by then and hopefully nowhere near anything using a gun I need 5 inches of deck armor for. Turret top armor is more doable but again, I don't think it's the best use of the weight for the time period. I would be better off using that weight to add ammo I think. 25,000 tons is probably more expensive than I want to spend on a ship that is going to get sent to colonial areas fairly early like when I have two or at the most three follow-up generations of ships complete. ------------------------------------------------------- So in general, the response I feel I'm getting is if I have to pick one of them, a 11" (+1) design is preferable but none of them are really what I need and I would be better with a cheap stopgap or just building a battlecruiser class, where the 11 inch gun isn't as much of a liability because it will be going up against thinner armor. Better that than to waste money on a full production run (4 ships is the plan) of dreadnought battleships that all have a glaring weakness. Feel free to pipe up if you disagree or you think I missed the plot. For the record you guys are awesome and I really enjoy the time I spend on this forum.
|
|