|
Post by babylon218 on Nov 30, 2017 19:20:23 GMT -6
There is, of course, another option.
We could go to the British, hand-on-knee, and ask them to build us a Dreadnought.
*Gets shouted out of the navy by Mahan.*
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 30, 2017 20:59:55 GMT -6
No, that would mean losing too much face. What we do is goad Brazil into ordering a massive battleship they can't afford, then we seize it when it calls at Miami to coal.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 1, 2017 2:29:40 GMT -6
There is, of course, another option. We could go to the British, hand-on-knee, and ask them to build us a Dreadnought. *Gets shouted out of the navy by Mahan.* Heh, I wouldn't shout at you but I do have some brand new administrative posts in the Bismarck Archipelago looking for a lifetime appointee.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 1, 2017 3:31:26 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 battle ship 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. If 13" guns are discarded into consideration I fully support the idea preparing feasibility study of battlecruiser design. In this case I suggest to focus study on long range fight in mind. As we all can see capital ship designs in past did not expect that increase of fighting range and hence there are not suited for long range plunging fire. I do not expect that admirals of foreign navies are so foresighted that capital ships in construction have enough deck and turret top armor. Conclusion: 1. I would suggest very cheap 8x11" battlecruiser design with speed of 27 knots, engine optimized for speed, deck armor of 2.5-3" and belt armor only 7" (deck armor of sloped deck will help), turret armor of 10" with roof of 3-3.5". I do not consider speed as defence against heavy guns, however as tactical advantage to choose to fight and range of fight or not to fight at all and important factor as defence against destroyers so I suggest to cut secondary guns to 12x4". 2. I would suggest increase priority on developing of heavy guns as this type of battlecruiser could suplement battleships only for short period of time and proper reevaluation of usage of such battlecruiser need to be regularly done
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 1, 2017 4:18:12 GMT -6
Respected Admirals and members of the Board, After much valuable discussion yesterday, the Admiral has had several new preliminary proposals drawn up for your review. Top Left: A 25 knot, 11 inch gun, fast battleship using the same displacement as the previous submissions. Top Right: An interim, stopgap measure, pocket battleship style, 11 inch gun armed BB made by reducing the armor to the minimum desired and then lowering displacement to fit. Designed to minimize ship construction costs until a more suitable battleship caliber weapon is available. Lower Left: A battlecruiser based on the Top Right pocket battleship created by raising speed to 25 kts and then increasing displacement to match. A 24 knot version is not shown but was created for comparison purposes. It is 600 tons lighter and $3 million cheaper than the 25 knot version. Both are designed to be a cheaper, less well protected version of the fast battleship design in the top left. Lower Right: A minimalist design pocket battlecruiser in the style of the original Fisher Invincible's. Purposed specifically to hunt down armored cruiser merchant raiders that caused so much trouble in the last war. It carries enough weapons and armor to completely outclass any armored cruiser but would probably have to run from any contemporary or future battlecruiser. Here is a table comparing some of the features including cost. The admiral very much looks forward to your comments. Very Respectfully, Cdr. Durham If 13" guns are discarded into consideration I fully support the idea preparing feasibility study of battlecruiser design. In this case I suggest to focus study on long range fight in mind. As we all can see capital ship designs in past did not expect that increase of fighting range and hence there are not suited for long range plunging fire. I do not expect that admirals of foreign navies are so foresighted that capital ships in construction have enough deck and turret top armor. Conclusion: 1. I would suggest very cheap 8x11" battlecruiser design with speed of 27 knots, engine optimized for speed, deck armor of 2.5-3" and belt armor only 7" (deck armor of sloped deck will help), turret armor of 10" with roof of 3-3.5". I do not consider speed as defence against heavy guns, however as tactical advantage to choose to fight and range of fight or not to fight at all and important factor as defence against destroyers so I suggest to cut secondary guns to 12x4". 2. I would suggest increase priority on developing of heavy guns as this type of battlecruiser could suplement battleships only for short period of time and proper reevaluation of usage of such battlecruiser need to be regularly done VAdm. dorn , The admiral has taken the liberty to have a preliminary design drawn up using your recommendations with one exception. The admiral is strongly against using lightweight, speed optimized engines in his capital ship designs. He doesn't trust their reliability under the stress of combat and doesn't want to lose an entire ship because one of the bearings seized up and forced it to slow down. I will say that your design idea may be a little ahead of the current game time. Seeing as it's early 1907 we are still roughly five years away from director fire so effective long range accuracy is still not likely in the current environment. I reduced the belt armor as recommended and that eliminated some of the weight penalty of raising the speed to 27 knots (my current Machinery tech level is 8 so 27 knots is bleeding edge for a large warship which means heavy and expensive) but I'm concerned about fights in bad weather or at night. Both occurred frequently in Northern Europe in the last war. Long range fights were more viable in the Southwest Pacific. It didn't rain nearly as often. The other big concern I might have is the cost. 27 knot engines jacks the price back up to almost $70 million per ship. Let me know if this isn't what you were looking for.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 1, 2017 13:04:05 GMT -6
I'm inclined to support the 20,800t 25kn Lexington, or maybe the 18,000t 25kn pocket Lexington if the Navy feels that it can build an extra ship within the budget by going with the smaller design, though as the Lexingtons carry lighter guns than the British Indomitable I would somewhat prefer for the Lexingtons to have an advantage in armor, which the pocket version would not. It might be worth seeing if 26 knots can be achieved on the 20,800 Lexington by a combination of minor reductions in belt and secondary armor, and perhaps by moving X turret forwards to the V position, in case the second generation of British battlecruisers or the first generation of any other power's battlecruisers improved on the Indomitables' speed.
If the Navy intends to settle on a battleship as originally planned, then my support instead goes to the 18,400t pocket Pennsylvania, as it does not appear to have made any particularly significant compromises for the considerably reduced unit cost compared to the larger battleship proposals. If the pocket Pennsylvania is developed further, I would consider reducing the secondary battery armor to 2" or maybe 2.5" in exchange for either additional 4" guns or an increase in the caliber of the existing guns from 4" to 5", as it is my opinion that the protection offered by 3" armor is not much superior to that offered by 2" or 2.5" armor except in the relatively unlikely case of a direct hit at long range from a 5-6" shell, or maybe a 7" shell fired by gun of an inferior design.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 1, 2017 13:51:01 GMT -6
Thank you for providing feasibilty study and I agree with you that our technology is not mature enough for this design.
I support bottom right version with suggestion to think about slightly decreasing belt armor for 1 knot speed to achieve 26 knots to have 2 knots speed advantage over Indomitable class. As 13" guns of Indomitable is expected to be inferior to ours 11" guns I find 8" belt armor could be fine as I expect that our ship will use her superior range and speed to be out of range of 13" guns of british ship. I have very similar view with VAdm. Aeson. We should put main question. What is the purpose of the ship? a) main battle line? Than we need fully battleship design you provide with 80 M costs. Its too much for ship armed with 8x11" guns and limited usefulness. b) support battle line - We need ship with high firepower through 11" guns but we can decrease armor as she will be not targeted and if so, she needs higher speed to get herself out of range c) fight against battlecruisers - We need ship with solid firepower (11" guns is satisfactory) and good speed or armor d) cruiser killer - we need good speed and 11" guns
We cannot have ships to suit best in all categories. I think that battlecruiser design (full or pocket) serve best. However as I think that the ship will be absolute quite quickly I suggest spending so little money as possible.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 1, 2017 17:09:12 GMT -6
For what it is worth, I echo V.Adm. Aeson's recommendations, esp. the 18,ooo ton 'pocket Lexington' if an extra ship can be procured on the lower tonnage.
In 4 years we will be building 15" gunned ships, and these will be second rate, but for 6 years their "good enough to fight" quality will give you the edge.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 2, 2017 8:49:36 GMT -6
Esteemed members of the General Board, Here are two updated and prospective final designs. Both are 26 knot, 4x2 11 inch gun armed battlecruisers. The heavier Lexington, named for the famous revolutionary war battle, is designed to be able to engage contemporary battlecruisers directly and the lighter Constellation, named after one of the original six frigates of the US Navy, more specialized towards anti-armored cruiser and anti-merchant raider missions and not expected to directly engage larger enemy battlecruisers. The Admiral has briefly considered building both classes simultaneously (4 Lex's, 2 Connie's) since the plan is not to build a contemporary battleship class. However, we also need to construct a class of four 6,000 ton light armored cruisers (CL's) and a class of sixteen 700 ton destroyers. 4 Constellation's would cost $276.208 million 5 Constellation's would cost $345.26 million 4 Lexington's would cost $315.396 million 2 Constellation's would cost $138.04 million The Admiral would again appreciate any comments the Board has before a final design or designs are authorized. [I'm probably not going to be able to build all six ships. I have a shipbuilding budget of about $11.2 million and a warchest of $120 million (minus $15 million in development fees so call it $105 million). I already have most ships armored cruiser and larger already In Reserve but all of my protected cruisers and lighter are on Active Duty so I could free up some funds there. I need to do a blank refit next year to cycle ships through before the next war anyway and crew quality will reset then so no reason not to go ahead and stick most of them in reserve. All six battlecruisers simultaneously would be about $15 million a month and then adding the four cruisers (at least another $1 million each) and the sixteen destroyers (I can spread them out to about eight at a time for $300 thousand each or $2.4 million a turn for eight) and that $105 million will disappear quick. Plus I need to be prepared to build a battleship class if I get an improved battleship caliber gun. It would nice to have all six though. My budget should go up over that time since tensions are about as low as they can be mid-game and I would expect them to start going up but you can't predict when and by exactly how much.]
|
|
|
Post by director on Dec 2, 2017 9:14:51 GMT -6
I am apprehensive about the BC designs, for one reason - speed. At 26 knots they cannot catch or run from an enemy BC, and if something goes amiss in the engineering plant they will only make 25 knots. That is too slow to be usable and would necessitate an expensive rebuilding of their propulsion plant.
My advice is not to build a BC until 27 knots is achievable without seriously reducing other design factors. But if you must, build fewer numbers of the bigger ships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 2, 2017 9:36:14 GMT -6
Esteemed members of the General Board, Here are two updated and prospective final designs. Both are 26 knot, 4x2 11 inch gun armed battlecruisers. The heavier Lexington, named for the famous revolutionary war battle, is designed to be able to engage contemporary battlecruisers directly and the lighter Constellation, named after one of the original six frigates of the US Navy, more specialized towards anti-armored cruiser and anti-merchant raider missions and not expected to directly engage larger enemy battlecruisers. The Admiral has briefly considered building both classes simultaneously (4 Lex's, 2 Connie's) since the plan is not to build a contemporary battleship class. However, we also need to construct a class of four 6,000 ton light armored cruisers (CL's) and a class of sixteen 700 ton destroyers. 4 Constellation's would cost $276.208 million 5 Constellation's would cost $345.26 million 4 Lexington's would cost $315.396 million 2 Constellation's would cost $138.04 million The Admiral would again appreciate any comments the Board has before a final design or designs are authorized. [I'm probably not going to be able to build all six ships. I have a shipbuilding budget of about $11.2 million and a warchest of $120 million (minus $15 million in development fees so call it $105 million). I already have most ships armored cruiser and larger already In Reserve but all of my protected cruisers and lighter are on Active Duty so I could free up some funds there. I need to do a blank refit next year to cycle ships through before the next war anyway and crew quality will reset then so no reason not to go ahead and stick most of them in reserve. All six battlecruisers simultaneously would be about $15 million a month and then adding the four cruisers (at least another $1 million each) and the sixteen destroyers (I can spread them out to about eight at a time for $300 thousand each or $2.4 million a turn for eight) and that $105 million will disappear quick. Plus I need to be prepared to build a battleship class if I get an improved battleship caliber gun. It would nice to have all six though. My budget should go up over that time since tensions are about as low as they can be mid-game and I would expect them to start going up but you can't predict when and by exactly how much.] Memorandum To: Bcoopactual From: BNC Subject: Design Choices My team and I, have examined your choices and discussed them at length. Our consensus is that you adopt the second design, with some changes. Reduce the range to medium, reduce the secondary guns to 10, five turrets on each side amidship. Use the saved weight to gain one more knot of speed. Respectfully, Oldpop2000, Chief Designer
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 2, 2017 11:09:28 GMT -6
My vote goes to the Lexingtons.
The foreign powers are unlikely to begin withdrawing even the oldest of their armored cruisers from service before 1914, and it's only 1907 in bcoopactual's game. If the ships have difficulty making design speed on trials and so are only good for 25 knots in service, it won't help their useful service lives, but they're relatively small battlecruisers with only eight 11" guns - their usefulness declines sharply once the old armored cruisers start disappearing anyways.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 2, 2017 19:06:59 GMT -6
I am apprehensive about the BC designs, for one reason - speed. At 26 knots they cannot catch or run from an enemy BC, and if something goes amiss in the engineering plant they will only make 25 knots. That is too slow to be usable and would necessitate an expensive rebuilding of their propulsion plant. My advice is not to build a BC until 27 knots is achievable without seriously reducing other design factors. But if you must, build fewer numbers of the bigger ships. Adm. director , the current (and only) generation of battlecruisers has a speed of 24 knots. As VAdm. aeson mentioned, it's March 1907 and most likely the current ones under construction are 24 or 25 knots. So even if Lexington fails to meet its design speed it should be no worse than any of its contemporary rivals. To make the Lex's 27 knots with level 8 Machinery tech, without reducing arms or armor, I would have to increase the displacement to 22,000 tons and the cost to $84 million. Adm. oldpop2000 , I could make the Constellation 27 knots just by reducing range to medium. Then I could either add one-half inch of armor to the turret faces and conning tower or if instead of increasing armor and I make the rest of your recommended changes, I could reduce displacement to 17,600 tons. I don't really want to do either of those things. The primary role of the Connie's is to hunt down armored cruiser merchant raiders. Having the extra fuel increases their chances of success. I admit, I have no idea if the bonus is worth the weight penalty because we don't know just how much of a bonus interceptors get for long range. But, adding .5 inches to the turrets isn't necessary for hunting ACR's and it isn't going to make it capable of standing up to the larger rival battlecruisers. The small version on the other hand has the problem, at least in my view, that it's anti-destroyer broadside of only five guns is inadequate without secondary directors which are roughly seven years away. Regardless, as always, your comments are most appreciated. VAdm. aeson , I'm inclined to agree that the 26 knot Lexington's are the best current option until better large caliber options become available. As a backup, Intelligence Chief garrisonchisholm has assets in Brazil, Argentina and Chile currently lobbying sympathetic elements of their Governments of the necessity of buying their own capital ships to protect them from European influence and their South American rivals (each other). We will then be able to seize them if the opportunity arises.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 2, 2017 19:27:03 GMT -6
I'll also throw my support to the Lexington design. 26kn is sufficient for the time being and her armour will allow her to stand against enemy Battlecruisers for some time until a superior armament can be devised.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 2, 2017 22:37:28 GMT -6
As a backup, Intelligence Chief garrisonchisholm has assets in Brazil, Argentina and Chile currently lobbying sympathetic elements of their Governments of the necessity of buying their own capital ships to protect them from European influence and their South American rivals (each other). We will then be able to seize them if the opportunity arises. And here I didn't think I'd wake up and feel important today! lol *starts ordering far too expensive office furniture*
|
|