"Modern" (1920+) cruiser design review.

[garrisonchisholm]

I have for some time stopped providing deck armor for my "modern" CLs.  If they are fighting a foe they should fight, I design them to overwhelm (if they aren't a throw-away scout), and if they should *not* fight their opponent on a given day then they should be running.  Post 1920 or so I figure an inch of deck armor isn't going to do bloody much good anyway.

However, as I build my modern light cruisers to overwhelm their opponents with volume fire, their weight inches up.  I now find myself building 1.5 mil/mo 8000 ton CLs and thinking, if I am investing *that* much in them, maybe 5 less guns to provide the armor is reasonable after all.

What is the consensus, do my fellow admirals armor their modern light cruiser decks?

This is the ship which spurred the question-  yes, secondaries at ALL on a CL are a waste, however at the time I wanted them to be able to engage 2 targets at once and so mounted the 4" guns.  For the sake of argument, imagine the secondaries were not there and the ship was 1 knot faster.

[chris19delta]

Most of your conclusions are in line with mine regarding CLs (I build 8000 tonners all game). Firepower, particularly hitting first and then hitting most, is absolutely key for CLs is it is their only practical protection. Hits both sink ships and negatively affects the target's gunnery. While this is true for all ships it's especially important for CLs and DDs which cannot rely on armor negating hits. While I haven't tried eliminating armor on CLs, I can certainly understand its appeal. I may have to build a CL class to test this.

Personally, one thing I've been wanting to test with CLs is abusing the refit mechanic for 8" ww2 heavy cruiser style CLs. With an experimental 20-12" BC last play through I noticed how much shell weight mattered, my 16" ships routinely sank/disabled enemy capital ships in 2-3 salvos, while the 12" BC was taking 30+ min to sink a single older BC and I want to see how this works out with CLs. My one concern with this is whether the 8" guns will hit often enough to keep the enemy's hit rate down. 

[boomboomf22]

I usually try to have a splinter proof deck (2") on my cls if I can afford the weight. Tho I am a bit weird in that I tend to build in the 5000-6000ton range of I can so I can get more ships out while still building Uber expensive everything and the kitchen sink style BBs

[bcoopactual]

Late game horizontal penetration for the 6 inch shell is maxed out at about 1.5 inches @15,000 yards.



Don't pay attention to the max ranges listed, they are wrong and I'm in the process of updating my spreadsheets but the armor penetration figures should be good.  That's with FC Tech at level 19 and AP tech at level 12.  AP techs average about 64% chance of being researched the first time through and there are 14 of them.  Several have only a 30% or 40% chance of researching them.  So actually achieving a AP tech level of 12 is kind of optimistic which means in-game your numbers will probably be slightly less than that figure.  

Anyway, I wouldn't think 1.5 inches of deck armor would be a waste, certainly not when combined with the AoN scheme, considering late game CL's have Directors and should be able to use plunging fire.  

[director]

I've been building CLs with four triple 6" turrets, 3" to 4" of belt/turret armor and (I think) 2" deck once I get to AON armor.
These are decidedly superior to the 8-6" gunned AI CLs but still prone to take heavy shells when employed in the scouting role.
I've never tried abandoning armor - the fear of a single catastrophic hit is strong in this one - or packing quad turrets on. If CLs were able to go up to 10k tons (or bigger as CLs of the period could be) then I'd try some experimenting.
A 9x6" ship permits thickening up the armor or decreasing the overall tonnage for a colonial ship.

[Fredrik W]

A ship with no deck armor should have a much larger chance than now to incur splinter damage to machinery or other vital areas. This will be changed in RTW2.

[oaktree]

Jan 2, 2018 11:57:20 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

A ship with no deck armor should have a much larger chance than now to incur splinter damage to machinery or other vital areas. This will be changed in RTW2.

And in RTW2 deck armor will also require attention due to the threat of bombs from aircraft.  

UK 20s-30s cruiser design paid attention to this factor and was simply another factor in trying to shove more and more onto lower displacements.  I got the impression that if they could have undone the Hawkins class they would have considered it since Britain greatly favored smaller and more plentiful CLs given their needs as compared to the 10,000+ ton bruisers.

[rimbecano]

Jan 2, 2018 8:29:35 GMT -6 bcoopactual said:

Late game horizontal penetration for the 6 inch shell is maxed out at about 1.5 inches @15,000 yards.

It's not direct penetration you have to worry about. Anything less than 2" can be penetrated by splinters. When I've tried building deckless CLs, I've tended to lose them to splinters crippling machinery. I'll build 1 and 1.5" decks in the early game, but all of my modern CLs have 2" decks. 

[archelaos]

I usually do not go above 1" deck on CLs. Yes this make them more vulnerable, but on the other hand this allows me to fit at first 3x3 6in (designed 1923) and later 4x3 6in, 31kts on 7000t hull (rather than 8000t), thus saving 4,5mln (1/8th cost) on construction alone (plus more in maintenance) which is a lot (additional DD). Playing as small nations I would usually take the money Besides, they always worked fine for me in cruiser battles. In fleet battles they unfortunately often loose speed due to machinery hits, but 2-3in of belt armour is also almost useless at this point in time.

Deck hits are quite rare even in long range BB engagements, so I feel the risk is worth the cost. On the other hand, I would not feel comfortable without any armour at all.

Recently I built almost direct copy on Atlanta class (4 ships, launched 1927-30) to test if this config would work, but I was quite disappointed.



They were not really successful in battle. While they managed to hit a lot if they got close, at medium-long range they were not hitting much more than 9x6in ships. Damaging power of 5in shells was also not enough to sink typical AI 8x2 6in cruiser.
Esp firepower forward and aft was significantly weaker than standard cruiser as only 2 superfiring are allowed making C and W turrets way less efficient than in reality.

Jan 2, 2018 11:57:20 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

A ship with no deck armor should have a much larger chance than now to incur splinter damage to machinery or other vital areas. This will be changed in RTW2.

I hope we will get box over magazines/engines armour scheme to cut the weight of armour down?

[garrisonchisholm]

Hm. Well, I have a class of 10 sporting only the finest varnished teak that will operate for 10 years. I'll see what their casualty percentage is and what I note of their demises and report it here.

[director]

archelaos - Please note the Atlanta class were intended to be a British, French or Japanese-style destroyer leader, and intended only to engage in gunnery battles with destroyers. I, too, have built some CLs with a powerful 5" gun battery and found them to be pretty successful. My last German playthrough I built 12x6" (4x3) CLs for home waters and 12x5" (4x5") CLs for overseas work and got good use from them.

[aeson]

I personally armor the decks on my late-game cruisers, though never more than 2" and more commonly 1-1.5".

Jan 2, 2018 8:46:28 GMT -6 director said:

packing quad turrets on

Quad main and secondary turrets are illegal on CL designs in Rule the Waves v1.34b1 (don't know about in other versions), even if you do something silly like use a 2" or 3" main battery. Maybe there's a way around it with the rebuild mechanics, in much the same way as there's a way around the 6" gun caliber limit, but if so I don't know it.

Recently I built almost direct copy on Atlanta class (4 ships, launched 1927-30) to test if this config would work, but I was quite disappointed.

They were not really successful in battle. While they managed to hit a lot if they got close, at medium-long range they were not hitting much more than 9x6in ships. Damaging power of 5in shells was also not enough to sink typical AI 8x2 6in cruiser.
Esp firepower forward and aft was significantly weaker than standard cruiser as only 2 superfiring are allowed making C and W turrets way less efficient than in reality.

Going for triple rather than twin turrets, at least on the superfiring pairs, and eliminating the main battery wing turrets would probably have been better than trying to replicate the Atlanta pattern as closely as possible within the game. Regardless, I agree with the conclusion that, at least in the late game, 5" CLs are lackluster at best in cruiser actions. They're adequate, maybe even a bit better, than 6" CLs in the fleet scout/escort role where their main targets are usually the enemy fleet's destroyers, but when the game picks them as my heaviest or only ships in a battle and pits them against enemy cruisers they tend to disappoint. Late-game 6" guns have a fairly significant range advantage over 5" guns in fair-weather daytime engagements so 5" CLs tend to suffer while trying to close the range and armoring a CL enough to compensate for that is at best difficult and probably impractical; at shorter ranges, the 5" gun's higher rate of fire doesn't really seem to compensate for the 6" gun's higher damage per hit.

yes, secondaries at ALL on a CL are a waste, however at the time I wanted them to be able to engage 2 targets at once and so mounted the 4" guns.

I neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree that CL secondaries are a waste. Before you have secondary directors, the secondary and tertiary batteries aren't really all that much less accurate than the main battery, especially at long range, and a 4" or 5" secondary battery complements a 6" main battery reasonably well early on, particularly against destroyers (i.e. when the CL is being used as a light fleet escort). Once you get secondary directors, the usefulness of CL secondary guns falls off quite a bit, especially against cruisers, but I think they're still generally more helpful than harmful in the light fleet escort role. Helpful enough to justify keeping them, perhaps not, but still helpful, and tonnage spent on them will probably have a more visible* impact on the game than the 80 tons you spent on mines on your Dunkerque design.

Also, how can you say no to a legacy protected cruiser carrying 30-40 guns of at least 4" caliber? (I know, I know: "Easily.")

*'More visible' does not necessarily mean 'greater,' but the impact of mine warfare is variable and often difficult to gauge whereas you'll generally see the secondary guns do something whenever they're in range in a battle, even if whatever they do is not terribly effective.

[garrisonchisholm]

Well, 2" of deck on my 8000 ton cruiser comes to 1100 tons. It is doable, but the philosophy has to change dramatically, from overwhelm by fusillade to general purpose support, as it would mean cutting from 20 to 8 guns.

I have always found that hitting first with smothering fire is the key to limiting damage, and only when I have engaged unwisely and been terribly outnumbered have I been overwhelmed in turn. In my PLC AAR the fleet was mostly destroyed post-credits, due entirely to facing so many enemy that too many of them could make "undisturbed practice", i.e., firing without being hindered or bothered by enemy fire. I am sure there must be a modifier in the game for that.

I think I would rather have 20 guns with no deck armor than 8 with it, though I will gather data and see if that is a decision I rue.

[aeson]

Jan 2, 2018 20:20:33 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

Well, 2" of deck on my 8000 ton cruiser comes to 1100 tons. It is doable, but the philosophy has to change dramatically, from overwhelm by fusillade to general purpose support, as it would mean cutting from 20 to 8 guns.

I have always found that hitting first with smothering fire is the key to limiting damage, and only when I have engaged unwisely and been terribly outnumbered have I been overwhelmed in turn. In my PLC AAR the fleet was mostly destroyed post-credits, due entirely to facing so many enemy that too many of them could make "undisturbed practice", i.e., firing without being hindered or bothered by enemy fire. I am sure there must be a modifier in the game for that.

I think I would rather have 20 guns with no deck armor than 8 with it, though I will gather data and see if that is a decision I rue.

I think if you try it you'll find you can do 12-15 guns with a 1.5-2" deck, and I'd rather have 12-15 guns with some deck armor than 20 guns without. If I do want 20 guns, I'd thin out the armor, maybe drop the design speed on the 31kn designs to 30 knots, or possibly dump the mines or torpedoes, but I wouldn't completely get rid of the deck armor on a high-end cruiser. It might not quite have all the bells and whistles, but it'll work.


I'm not claiming that these are the best designs by any means, but they're examples of some of the things that can be done.

[dorn]

All my games ended in 1925 so every note should be taken as all experience is bellow maximum technology.

From my experience using more than 1" deck armor for CL are not cost effective. The decrease of protection is quite low and save of tonnage or money quite large.
After around 1920 (100 % research) I usually go with 1" deck armor, 1.5" turret top armor. I usually prefer turrets armor to have some protection against 6" guns vs. belt armor as against 6" guns 3" of armor is almost useless.

If I really need quality I go different way and build cost optimize CA around 8000-10000 tons with idea of less (6-9) but higher caliber 8" guns (longer range) and either only turret armored against 6" guns or the whole vessel. With such designed vessel I can fight several CLs at once in cost slightly higher than 8.000 tons CL. This CAs are not supposed to fight enemy CAs. There are ideal on areas where enemy send several CLs but not heavy ships. Its cheaper than sending fleet of CLs.