Design Submissions for Review to the General Board

[bcoopactual]

garrisonchisholm, as long as it doesn't come out of my shipbuilding fund. I'm going to need every penny.

[dorn]

Admiral Bcoopactual, I agree 26 knots are sufficient speed and increase to 27 knots are not worth the costs.

I support the third option decreasing speed to 26 knots and decreasing displacement to save costs. If your main tasks of the ship is hunting enemy armored cruisers there is no need to increase armor. If they meet enemy battlecruiser they can fight from distant and use higher ROF of their guns and higher speed if needed to get out of range.

[aeson]

Dec 2, 2017 23:33:01 GMT -6 dorn said:

I support the third option decreasing speed to 26 knots and decreasing displacement to save costs. If your main tasks of the ship is hunting enemy armored cruisers there is no need to increase armor. If they meet enemy battlecruiser they can fight from distant and use higher ROF of their guns and higher speed if needed to get out of range.

Based on a comparison of the penetrating power of the domestic 1907 model 11", 12", and 13" guns with the 1904 theoretical tables compiled by Adm. bcoopactual's office (roughly 10% improvement in belt penetration on the same caliber and quality of gun at each range increment), my staff estimates that even a poorly-designed 14" gun could currently penetrate at least 8" of belt armor at 12000 yards while a well-designed 14" gun may penetrate as much as 10" at the same range. We also estimate that a well-designed 13" gun could penetrate an 8.5" belt from at least 12kyd and a well-designed 12" gun could penetrate the same belt from over 8kyd. Given that we are still on Central Firing (not terribly surprising in 1907), I have doubts about our ability to effectively engage from more than about 10kyd, and perhaps not even that, with an 8x11" main battery and a 4" secondary battery. If the French or British have put their 14" guns onto their battlecruisers, or if any foreign power has better 12" or 13" guns than we do, I would be very concerned for the Constellations' ability to engage even contemporary battlecruisers, especially considering that at ~18000t they would already be at a fairly significant tonnage (and thus survivability) disadvantage, even if they have the speed to control the engagement range. I would much rather bring the Lexington 11" 26kn shown in Big Two 3rd Round into service, as its 10.5" belt leaves more margin for error while playing the range game and is more likely to be adequate at our practical maximum engagement range than the Constellations' 8.5" belt is.

[bcoopactual]

Here is the final design.  Thank you everybody, I appreciated the input and enjoyed this discussion.  

[garrisonchisholm]

Wow. That article is *sharp* Bcoop, well done!

[bcoopactual]

Thanks. I found a fake newspaper generator online and the picture is from the actual keel laying ceremony for USS Iowa (BB-61).

[fredsanford]

Next turn: Develops 14" (0) guns.

FWIW, Wikipedia tells me that the design of IRL USN 14" guns dates to 1910, so you have a few years maybe. I saw you have a new 700 ton DD on the way also. Do they have twin launchers yet, and are your torpedos decent? If yes to both (or close on torps), then I'd build a bunch (several dozen) of those to pad your "battle" fleet. This will help prevent blockade, and also give you a valid offensive weapon in case of fleet action while also allowing your B's a chance to disengage in the event you encounter a superior (British) force. I [heart] the "flotilla attack" button.

I saw you gained Finland from Russia- Excellent. Never miss on building that base capacity up, it can't be too big. This will be your ace-in-the-hole for the future war with Britain you know is coming. Along with beating up the other Euros...

[bcoopactual]

Dec 5, 2017 14:03:18 GMT -6 fredsanford said:

Next turn: Develops 14" (0) guns.

FWIW, Wikipedia tells me that the design of IRL USN 14" guns dates to 1910, so you have a few years maybe. I saw you have a new 700 ton DD on the way also. Do they have twin launchers yet, and are your torpedos decent? If yes to both (or close on torps), then I'd build a bunch (several dozen) of those to pad your "battle" fleet. This will help prevent blockade, and also give you a valid offensive weapon in case of fleet action while also allowing your B's a chance to disengage in the event you encounter a superior (British) force. I [heart] the "flotilla attack" button.

I saw you gained Finland from Russia- Excellent. Never miss on building that base capacity up, it can't be too big. This will be your ace-in-the-hole for the future war with Britain you know is coming. Along with beating up the other Euros...

LOL, That's kinda what I'm expecting.  Go through all of this debate and work through a bunch of designs and then next turn or the one after, I'll develop 12 inch (0) guns or steal it from somebody [Germany and England have 12 inch (0) and the French have 12 inch (+1) already] and then it will all be rendered irrelevant.

No on the twin mounts but I've hit on the first five torpedo techs including the one which increases damage so my torpedoes are as good as they can be right now.  

Improving the capacity of Finland as I write.  I'll probably go up to at least 300-400.  The baseline 100 wasn't near enough while I was carrying on the fight with Germany.  I had a lot of ships with * at one time.  I didn't notice any issues in the few European missions I ran (I was concentrating on supporting land combat in Southeast Asia for most of the time between Russia's collapse and Germany asking for peace) but I didn't like seeing that.  It screwed with my being able to set my cruisers on raider missions.  I never keep or set a ship with an * on Raider status.  That's just asking for the ship to be scuttled or interned.    

[oldpop2000]

Dec 5, 2017 14:03:18 GMT -6 fredsanford said:

Next turn: Develops 14" (0) guns.

FWIW, Wikipedia tells me that the design of IRL USN 14" guns dates to 1910, so you have a few years maybe. I saw you have a new 700 ton DD on the way also. Do they have twin launchers yet, and are your torpedos decent? If yes to both (or close on torps), then I'd build a bunch (several dozen) of those to pad your "battle" fleet. This will help prevent blockade, and also give you a valid offensive weapon in case of fleet action while also allowing your B's a chance to disengage in the event you encounter a superior (British) force. I [heart] the "flotilla attack" button.

I saw you gained Finland from Russia- Excellent. Never miss on building that base capacity up, it can't be too big. This will be your ace-in-the-hole for the future war with Britain you know is coming. Along with beating up the other Euros...

Here is a very complete description and tables for the USN 14"/45. www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_14-45_mk1.php

[bcoopactual]

Short follow-up.  Dec 1907, 9 months into the construction of Lexington and 7 months after its sistership Concord was laid down and Oh boy, I was wrong about the Westfalen's.  


SMS Wörth just commissioned and there are six more on the ways.  Fortunately they are slow but my pre-dreadnoughts are no match for them.  
Adding insult to injury, the British just commissioned their second battlecruiser design as well.  Say hello to HMS Indefatigable.  


Still no progress on a better large caliber gun.  I think I need to play nice for the next couple of years.  

[aeson]

Well, look on the bright side - despite being 2500 tons heavier than its predecessor, Indefatigable still lost an inch of belt armor to increase its gun caliber by an inch, and isn't otherwise any better than the Indomitable was, at least according to the Almanac.

The German Westfallens look pretty decent, though; I wouldn't want the Lexingtons to go up against them.

[garrisonchisholm]

I put my money on the Lexingtons, hands down. That Brit BC is no match for the firepower of this batt- oh, um, where was I...

[bcoopactual]

Dec 7, 2017 18:40:08 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

I put my money on the Lexingtons, hands down. That Brit BC is no match for the firepower of this batt- oh, um, where was I...

You were explaining to me why the intelligence service expenses includes ridiculously overpriced office furniture but couldn't tell me that the Westfalen's were true dreadnought types, lol.  

Anyway, looks like business is picking up and we are back in the game!

[oldpop2000]

Dec 7, 2017 18:40:08 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

I put my money on the Lexingtons, hands down. That Brit BC is no match for the firepower of this batt- oh, um, where was I...

I just want to point out a weakness in the armor layout for the real Lexington Battle-cruiser


The area I am pointing to is the weather deck and thickest armor plate was moved up to that deck but only covered the inboard portion. A shell striking just above the side armor would penetrate and plunge directly into the vitals. The only thing to stop it was the splinter deck which is very thin (2 inches). One good shot and this ship will come to a halt and that will be it. Luckily, it was turned into a carrier. I used the Springstyles #1 book, and examined the original design adopted for the Lexington to verify  the information. It was valid.

[aeson]

Dec 7, 2017 18:40:08 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

I put my money on the Lexingtons, hands down. That Brit BC is no match for the firepower of this batt- oh, um, where was I...

In a meeting with Peter Cushing?

Anyway, looks like business is picking up and we are back in the game!

Looks like it might be time to start rolling out the Standard-type battleships, or at least a reasonable approximation thereof (albeit probably without AoN armor).

You were explaining to me why the intelligence service expenses includes ridiculously overpriced office furniture but couldn't tell me that the Westfalen's were true dreadnought types, lol.

Having just gone by the C.I.O.'s office and seen the chair Westfallen with its custom upholstery and brass nameplate, I think perhaps our C.I.O. may just be too subtle in his communications.