|
Post by fredsanford on Jan 27, 2018 20:03:52 GMT -6
Those ships are quite large and expensive. Even reducing the speed by one knot could allow for substantial weight savings. And is there really a point in having that many guns on a battleship if it can't catch the enemy? I would prefer a smaller battleship with an inferior battery if it had a 20 knot speed. 19kt is pretty fast for the period. I bet the USN B's will only be 17kt. This fleet was designed on a Very Large basis. More Cl's can be started within the first year.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 27, 2018 20:06:50 GMT -6
Though he hasn't posted it here himself, Airy W, who has taken up the North Sea post, provided a laundry list of requirements for the North Sea Fleet, which I think is relevant to our present discussion; As you can see, the parts which are relevant for this discussion (unless Airy W wishes to modify his requirements) are the pair of armoured cruisers, the four protected cruisers, the destroyers, and the auxiliary vessels. Notably, all of these requirements will be met at the start of the game apart from the requirement for protected cruisers. Speaking of the protected cruisers, I'd like to advocate that the fleet cruisers, if we decide to have any, should be of a different class than the colonial cruisers. Colonial cruisers, ideally, should have reliable engines and long range to maximise raider interception capability. Fleet cruisers, by contrast, can get away with medium range and may benefit from speed priority engines; these differences can either be used to simply make the fleet cruisers cheaper or save tonnage to make them faster, better armoured, or better armed. I also like to give them a 3 inch battery to help defend the fleet against torpedo attack. As for fredsanford 's suggestions for deployment, I have no objections, save that I think it might be useful to place one or two of our battleships in the Mediterranean to make up the tonnage in peacetime and provide a check against French and Italian forces in the area.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 27, 2018 20:19:51 GMT -6
Those ships are quite large and expensive. Even reducing the speed by one knot could allow for substantial weight savings. And is there really a point in having that many guns on a battleship if it can't catch the enemy? I would prefer a smaller battleship with an inferior battery if it had a 20 knot speed. 19kt is pretty fast for the period. I bet the USN B's will only be 17kt. Regarding this debate - perhaps, as according to Airy W's initial proposal, a third of our battleships can have a speed of 20 knots, and the rest can be downgraded to the standard 18? However, one issue I have with 20 knots is that it's just 1 knot too slow to keep up with the standard dreadnoughts; is it possible to push it up to 21, or is that beyond the technology of the legacy fleet? Also relevant is boomboomf22 's proposals for large armoured cruisers, which I have also found to be useful. However, armoured cruisers are one type of ship whose technology develops rapidly in the early period of the game. The first viable ships classified by the game as battlecruisers (along the lines of Blucher) can be laid down in around 1902, and by 1904 you can build super-cruisers along the lines of eserchie's Spartiate: nws-online.proboards.com/post/7874 (18,000 tons, 12 10 inch guns) I've only ever built two of these super-cruisers in my last game as the UK, and so haven't tested the concept fully myself, but I would like to build some in this game around 1904. If we were to do so, they would render legacy 'fast Bs' obsolete even before dreadnoughts came around.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 27, 2018 20:34:25 GMT -6
Regarding some matters which haven't yet been brought up: Special Event Policy: I recommend that at the game's start we prioritise our prestige first, then our budget, at the expense of raising tensions with any other power; for the moment, I do not think that there is any power we cannot afford to go to war with at the beginning of the game, and I would be quite happy to take the risk of an early war with anyone. The only exception may be the USA, who we may wish to appease until our base construction in the Americas is done. Technology: My only concrete suggestion so far is that ship design be placed on high priority. In my last game as the UK, I did this while leaving everything else on medium, but more complex priorities would be quite welcome. I'd say that we can probably afford to skimp on submarines, so they can go to low priority, while perhaps anti-submarine warfare should go to high. In any case, this is a matter which merits some serious consideration and discussion. We may, for example, wish to consider prioritising gunnery over torpedo warfare, in which case we may lower the priority of torpedo research and the 'light forces and torpedo warfare' technology, though since that one pertains to cruisers we should probably avoid that. Regarding the question of harmonising our various ideas for force structure - since Airy W 's proposal requires more protected cruisers for the north sea, since boomboomf22 wants more protected cruisers as well, perhaps we could drop one of the battleships initially under construction to make way for some more existing protected fleet cruisers at the game's start?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 27, 2018 21:26:28 GMT -6
more crusiers sounds nice, big 8 kiloton cruisers can win cruiser engagements quite well
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Jan 27, 2018 22:29:06 GMT -6
The RN is a navy that needs a lot of good ships as opposed to a few monsters. IMO, "monsters" include 20/21 kt B's (those are cruiser speeds in 1900), proto-BC's, and large CL's. We need to spread the force over a wide area, while also maintaining a concentrated battlefleet that can blockade anyone. We win wars with blockades and fleet battles, as well as large cruiser engagements in the blockade zone. If an enemy sends out raiders- let them, we gain more points and push unrest higher and quicker than the raiders will.
If we go to war with Italy or France, putting some B's there makes sense as reinforcement, but I don't think we should dilute the battle fleet to provide SLOC tonnage on a routine basis. They will do little good for intercepting raiders, so I think we should count on our cruiser force to perform the SLOC security task. The battle fleet is the mass de maneuver as Napoleon put it, and shouldn't be needed to provide garrison units.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 27, 2018 23:24:41 GMT -6
most cruisers should be smaller, but two or three big ones to assist with killing would be nice
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 27, 2018 23:40:18 GMT -6
The RN is a navy that needs a lot of good ships as opposed to a few monsters. IMO, "monsters" include 20/21 kt B's (those are cruiser speeds in 1900), proto-BC's, and large CL's. We need to spread the force over a wide area, while also maintaining a concentrated battlefleet that can blockade anyone. We win wars with blockades and fleet battles, as well as large cruiser engagements in the blockade zone. If an enemy sends out raiders- let them, we gain more points and push unrest higher and quicker than the raiders will. If we go to war with Italy or France, putting some B's there makes sense as reinforcement, but I don't think we should dilute the battle fleet to provide SLOC tonnage on a routine basis. They will do little good for intercepting raiders, so I think we should count on our cruiser force to perform the SLOC security task. The battle fleet is the mass de maneuver as Napoleon put it, and shouldn't be needed to provide garrison units. I agree with you on the overall strategic concept - the RN should take a balanced approach to quality and quantity. I will, however, still champion the super-cruiser concept, because reportedly their utility is very great even well into the dreadnought age; that said, I would not propose that the entire armoured cruiser force, or even most of it, should consist of super-cruisers. Alright then - if disagreement persists on this matter, that's good, because we'll have our first contested point on the ballot. Fred's already presented his proposal for the force structure - if anybody would like to propose an alternative, please do so and we can debate the issue further leading up to the first ballot. Just to clarify, @fredansford - are you opposed to having any 20 knot battleships? Johnw's recommendation that at least a third of the North Sea battlefleet should consist of 20 knot vessels - a sort of 'fast squadron' like the Queen Elizabeths at Jutland. (Again, I think that 21 would be better if possible for the sake of keeping up with the future dreadnoughts.) Do you oppose having any of these fast pre-dreadnoughts?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 28, 2018 1:19:35 GMT -6
I think we should firstly split every category of the ships by missions for that they will be built. After that we should put every class to one of this category. Admirals in charge of theatre should choose their request from that categories and should tell us their needs for the ships in categories we should evaluate with global commitment needs.
We should focuse that our main principles as UK is to protect trade and set up our basic philosofie. It should be that our we have more capital ships in numbers than 110% of any other 2 European powers. For this we do not need excelence in every ship as this will be too costly and not economic effective.
Some example of sorting out ships categories:
Battleships: - first rate - 12"-13" guns, around armor 9-10", 1.5" deck (more is waste), speed 19 knots - second rate - 12" guns, around, 8-9" belt armor, 1.5" deck, speed 18 knots - third rate (colonial) - e.g. South Asia - 10-11" guns, armor about 7", deck armor 1"., speed 18 knots maximum - cheap design as possible
Basic concept is comming from the fact that even in large fleet battles usually only part of the fleet engaged themself so there is no need for only first class battleships. The first class battleships could be around 1/4 of all capital ships.
Armored cruisers: - first rate - 23 knots (more speed is too expensive for UK), 2x2x10" max, 6" secondary max., armor to resist 10" guns - second rate - 20-22 knots, 2x2x8" guns, rest 6" guns, armor to resists 10" guns - third rate - 19-20 knots, 2x2x8" and rest 5" guns, armor to resist 8" guns - minimal costs for using as colonial cruiser
Protected cruisers - first rate - 6.000 tons max (there is no need to have large cruisers as AI do not build anything comparable for long time period and at this time these cruisers should be transferred to other duties), 2x2x8" guns - second rate - 3.000-4.500 cruisers - decent speed 5"-6" guns - third rate - smalll cruisers for colonial operation and raider operation - could be slow and usually 5" guns - scout - small 2.100 tons with maximum speed - raider - small 2.100 tons, low speed 18 knots, but heavy armnament to resist enemy protected cruisers (AI does not build large cruiser and these type are able to resist interception by enemy protected cruiser and their low speed is not a problem as raiders they will not fight any other type of ships)
Destroyers: - 400 tons - main workforce, later submarine hunters (UK has no need to have only 500 tons destroyers) - 500 tons - 10-25% of the destroyers
EDIT: more detailed split of our needs
|
|
|
Post by parrot on Jan 28, 2018 1:28:04 GMT -6
In terms of foreign policy: I think there's much more to be gained from seeking an alliance with, or at least not antagonising the USA. If there was to be a war with them, it would require significant investments in our infrastructure in Canada & the Caribbean, and would in all likelihood be a very difficult and costly war fought on their turf. We would be forced to fight in the North Atlantic and Caribbean to defend our possessions, while they don't have any real analogue to that (the Philippines, sure, but it's not really comparable). War with the USA has high costs, high risks, and I don't think it has a corresponding payoff - though I do have to acknowledge that beating them early is not without benefits. America should be dealt with diplomatically. I do agree that Japan is a good potential ally though. At the very least we should avoid antagonising them for similar reasons to the USA: though they would be easier to beat, we would need to send considerable assets to the other side of the world, fight them on their home turf, and probably not get much benefit out of it. But once again, maybe there's something to be said for knocking them down a few pegs early on?
Basically, I think we should avoid entangling ourselves in wars with distant foes. To some extent this is even true of Italy! We should try to ally or placate the USA and Japan, which will let us put our full focus on Germany, France, and/or Russia. We can defeat any of them, close to home, in a major battle. Hopefully we can also pick away at their colonies while we have them locked down in Europe.
To this end, we (obviously) need a battle fleet that can comfortably overpower any of our European rivals. I think we also need sufficient forces to not only protect our colonies, but also properly dominate the fight overseas. I think powerful light cruisers, built specifically with colonial service in mind, are a good choice, and should be backed up by a few heavier ships like CAs or refitted old battleships, as the game progresses, that can be shifted around to wherever they need to be (and some destroyers, of course).
I think I'll defer to the experience of others as to how the fleet should look in Europe (or against the USA, if that's what happens). I'm really not used to having the bigger budget, let alone the gargantuan income of the RN, so my ideas of how to compose your battlefleet probably aren't all that applicable.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 28, 2018 1:32:24 GMT -6
The start fleet should consist of ships for various purposes. Battleships:- first rate - 12"-13" guns, around armor 9-10", 1.5" deck (more is waste), speed 19 knots - second rate - 12" guns, around, 8-9" belt armor, 1.5" deck, speed 18 knots - third rate (colonial) - e.g. South Asia - 10-11" guns, armor about 7", deck armor 1"., speed 18 knots maximum - cheap design as possible Basic concept is comming from the fact that even in large fleet battles usually only part of the fleet engaged themself so there is no need for only first class battleships. The first class battleships could be around 1/4 of all capital ships. Armored cruisers: - first rate - 23 knots (more speed is too expensive for UK), 2x2x10" max, 6" secondary max., armor to resist 10" guns - second rate - 20-22 knots, 2x2x8" guns, rest 6" guns, armor to resists 10" guns - third rate - 19-20 knots, 2x2x8" and rest 5" guns, armor to resist 8" guns - minimal costs for using as colonial cruiser Protected cruisers- first rate - 6.000 tons max (there is no need to have large cruisers as AI do not build anything comparable for long time period and at this time these cruisers should be transferred to other duties), 2x2x8" guns - second rate - 3.000-4.500 cruisers - decent speed 5"-6" guns - third rate - smalll cruisers for colonial operation and raider operation - could be slow and usually 5" guns - scout - small 2.100 tons with maximum speed - raider - small 2.100 tons, low speed 18 knots, but heavy armnament to resist enemy protected cruisers (AI does not build large cruiser and these type are able to resist interception by enemy protected cruiser and their low speed is not a problem as raiders they will not fight any other type of ships) Destroyers:- 400 tons - main workforce, later submarine hunters (UK has no need to have only 500 tons destroyers) - 500 tons - 10-25% of the destroyers Some of the ships you've listed here have assigned roles - like the colonial vessels, scouts, and raider. However, others have no apparent role - like the second rate battleship and cruiser, and the 400 ton destroyer. As far as I can tell, they are just slightly inferior versions of the first rate ships of each of those types. What is their purpose? Regarding the idea that since not all ships will be used in each battle, only a few need to be first - rate; this might be true if you could choose what ships to use in each battle but were still limited in number. However, since the ships are selected for us, I can't see the advantage of having a large number of inferior ships and gambling that we'll get to use the good ones when we need them. In my view, each class in the fleet should perform its given role as cost-effectively as possible, whether it's expensive and few in number or cheap and numerous. Furthermore, while extensive specialisation will be required for playing the UK on very large fleet size, a lack of standardisation will cause its own problems. If, for example, we end up in a fleet battle consisting of a mix of first rate and second rate battleships, armoured cruisers, and protected cruisers, all of these ships will have different speeds, limiting them being only as fast as the slowest vessel of their own type.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 28, 2018 1:46:42 GMT -6
In terms of foreign policy: I think there's much more to be gained from seeking an alliance with, or at least not antagonising the USA. If there was to be a war with them, it would require significant investments in our infrastructure in Canada & the Caribbean, and would in all likelihood be a very difficult and costly war fought on their turf. We would be forced to fight in the North Atlantic and Caribbean to defend our possessions, while they don't have any real analogue to that (the Philippines, sure, but it's not really comparable). War with the USA has high costs, high risks, and I don't think it has a corresponding payoff - though I do have to acknowledge that beating them early is not without benefits. America should be dealt with diplomatically. I do agree that Japan is a good potential ally though. At the very least we should avoid antagonising them for similar reasons to the USA: though they would be easier to beat, we would need to send considerable assets to the other side of the world, fight them on their home turf, and probably not get much benefit out of it. But once again, maybe there's something to be said for knocking them down a few pegs early on? Basically, I think we should avoid entangling ourselves in wars with distant foes. To some extent this is even true of Italy! We should try to ally or placate the USA and Japan, which will let us put our full focus on Germany, France, and/or Russia. We can defeat any of them, close to home, in a major battle. Hopefully we can also pick away at their colonies while we have them locked down in Europe. To this end, we (obviously) need a battle fleet that can comfortably overpower any of our European rivals. I think we also need sufficient forces to not only protect our colonies, but also properly dominate the fight overseas. I think powerful light cruisers, built specifically with colonial service in mind, are a good choice, and should be backed up by a few heavier ships like CAs or refitted old battleships, as the game progresses, that can be shifted around to wherever they need to be (and some destroyers, of course). I think I'll defer to the experience of others as to how the fleet should look in Europe (or against the USA, if that's what happens). I'm really not used to having the bigger budget, let alone the gargantuan income of the RN, so my ideas of how to compose your battlefleet probably aren't all that applicable. It really is a question of risk and reward. I think fred's argument is that since the USA will be our biggest potential competitor, it is better to actively weaken them by war while we know we can do so more or less comfortably, rather than face the threat of a very costly war with a peer opponent after 1915 or alternatively run the risk of losing out on budget and prestige by backing down from such a fight. Thus, the purpose of such a war would not be to claim colonies, but to reduce the threat to our forces. If we appease the USA and end up in alliance with them, then of course the threat to us is reduced, but as long as they continue to grow in power, there is the chance that they will turn on us down the track. I can see the merits of both directions. For me, the situation with Germany is more clear - cut; they are likely to be our greatest danger at least in the medium term (though this is not inevitable - Bolshevik Russia took their place in my last game,) and I don't think an alliance with them would be very profitable. For this reason I don't think we should make any attempts to appease them - no Peace in our Time! As with the USA, the earlier we fight them the better off we'll be. In short, I think that the only nations we should consider limiting tensions with are the USA and Japan, with the aim of securing an alliance with either one. Even then, in both cases, there is something to be said for actively seeking out war with those two powers early on, since they are the threats that will grow the most in the long term. As for the others - France, Russia and Italy - there is no reason for us to exercise any caution in these cases; war with these countries will likely be a profitable enterprise.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 28, 2018 1:49:03 GMT -6
The start fleet should consist of ships for various purposes. Battleships:- first rate - 12"-13" guns, around armor 9-10", 1.5" deck (more is waste), speed 19 knots - second rate - 12" guns, around, 8-9" belt armor, 1.5" deck, speed 18 knots - third rate (colonial) - e.g. South Asia - 10-11" guns, armor about 7", deck armor 1"., speed 18 knots maximum - cheap design as possible Basic concept is comming from the fact that even in large fleet battles usually only part of the fleet engaged themself so there is no need for only first class battleships. The first class battleships could be around 1/4 of all capital ships. Armored cruisers: - first rate - 23 knots (more speed is too expensive for UK), 2x2x10" max, 6" secondary max., armor to resist 10" guns - second rate - 20-22 knots, 2x2x8" guns, rest 6" guns, armor to resists 10" guns - third rate - 19-20 knots, 2x2x8" and rest 5" guns, armor to resist 8" guns - minimal costs for using as colonial cruiser Protected cruisers- first rate - 6.000 tons max (there is no need to have large cruisers as AI do not build anything comparable for long time period and at this time these cruisers should be transferred to other duties), 2x2x8" guns - second rate - 3.000-4.500 cruisers - decent speed 5"-6" guns - third rate - smalll cruisers for colonial operation and raider operation - could be slow and usually 5" guns - scout - small 2.100 tons with maximum speed - raider - small 2.100 tons, low speed 18 knots, but heavy armnament to resist enemy protected cruisers (AI does not build large cruiser and these type are able to resist interception by enemy protected cruiser and their low speed is not a problem as raiders they will not fight any other type of ships) Destroyers:- 400 tons - main workforce, later submarine hunters (UK has no need to have only 500 tons destroyers) - 500 tons - 10-25% of the destroyers Some of the ships you've listed here have assigned roles - like the colonial vessels, scouts, and raider. However, others have no apparent role - like the second rate battleship and cruiser, and the 400 ton destroyer. As far as I can tell, they are just slightly inferior versions of the first rate ships of each of those types. What is their purpose? Regarding the idea that since not all ships will be used in each battle, only a few need to be first - rate; this might be true if you could choose what ships to use in each battle but were still limited in number. However, since the ships are selected for us, I can't see the advantage of having a large number of inferior ships and gambling that we'll get to use the good ones when we need them. In my view, each class in the fleet should perform its given role as cost-effectively as possible, whether it's expensive and few in number or cheap and numerous. Furthermore, while extensive specialisation will be required for playing the UK on very large fleet size, a lack of standardisation will cause its own problems. If, for example, we end up in a fleet battle consisting of a mix of first rate and second rate battleships, armoured cruisers, and protected cruisers, all of these ships will have different speeds, limiting them being only as fast as the slowest vessel of their own type. Yes, this is the reason why I think we should standardized categories of ships. And theatre commanders could request ships by categories and request to build ships in categories with certain criteria. All is based that even in large battles mainly part of the force is more involved. Flag ships is usually much more involved than last ships in the battle line so there is no need to have same quality of ships for whole line. Same for the cruisers and destroyers. I split destroyers from tons (meantime), we can reclassify them later (eg. submarine hunter, torpedo boat, destroyer screen, flotilla leader) however at the time of 1900 i do not think it is nessesary. For the rest of the ships to split by categorie (1st, 2nd, 3rd class is the best know - later could be changed). And as you can see for CL there are 2 other categories for special purposes. However rest ships are split by their ability mainly. As time progress ships from 1st category will be transferred to 2nd etc. In case you do category by mission it will be much more difficult as you will have completely different ships in same category (the brand new ones and 20 years old unsuitable for the task). Just I think this is reason why ships were splitted in real life (maby be our most senior Admiral oldpop2000 would correct me).
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 28, 2018 2:02:54 GMT -6
To be fair, a 15,600t 10" CA with a 7" belt and 24kn design speed is little, if any, less of a proto-BC than an 11" or 12" CA of similar displacement would be, especially in 1899-1900. Either way, it's big enough to be a contemporary first class battleship and fast enough to be a cutting-edge cruiser, and it'll either be armed as well as a contemporary first class battleship with 'merely' armor comparable to a first class cruiser, or it'll be armed about as well as a contemporary second class or coastal battleship and carry armor intermediate between contemporary first class cruisers and contemporary first class battleships. At most, the difference here is one of degree, not kind, and considering just how big, how fast, and how heavily armored the proposed 10" CA is, I don't know that I'd even call it that - a 2x2x10" CA that large and that well armored is essentially the predreadnought version of the German-style battlecruiser whereas the 11" or 12" CA is more or less the predreadnought version of the British-style battlecruiser. Also, since you're objecting to 20-21kn battleships on the grounds that those are cruiser speeds in 1900, I'd point out that 24kn is outside the range of historical first class cruiser speeds in 1900. 24kn is at best at the extreme high end of second class and scout cruiser speeds in 1900, insofar as sustainable speeds go, and a large first class cruiser would be unlikely to exceed 22 knots. Even the 19 knots of your proposed battleship is pretty fast for an 1899-1900 battleship, and only slightly slow for an 1899-1900 cruiser. Maybe, but I don't really see just one or two battleships in the Mediterranean as all that useful except maybe as a fig leaf to cover the ahistorical unimportance of the Mediterranean to the in-game British Empire. Either we want enough capital ships in the Mediterranean to challenge the French or Italian battle line, or we don't really want any battleships in the Mediterranean at all except when at war with Italy or maybe France (and since we can blockade France with nary a ship in the Med and the Marine National has little real chance of breaking the blockade if the Royal Navy's battle line is concentrated in Northern Europe, I'm somewhat ambivalent about splitting the fleet to put a large number of capital ships into the Med when at war with France, unless you just want better odds of France accepting a fleet battle). Considering only the in-game strategic realities, I'd say that making a cruiser squadron of the Mediterranean Fleet is fine. Deploying enough battleships to the Mediterranean to contend with the Italian or the French battle line risks the Royal Navy's margin of superiority over Germany, Russia, and France in Northern Europe, especially as the game progresses and the British lead over the Continental European powers' navies becomes relatively less. Deploying only a handful of battleships exposes them to destruction at the hands of a locally-superior force for little real gain. Here are a 20kn and a 21kn battleship based on fredsandford's 19kn design: They're not a lot more expensive than the 19kn design fredsandford proposed, but the 20kn design loses two 7" and the 21kn design loses three 7" guns on the broadside. If we were to go for a 21kn battleship, I'd be inclined to go for something more like this and maybe drop the tertiary battery or even take some shortcuts like low freeboard or speed priority on the engines to cut the cost a bit further. Regardless, I don't really feel like Great Britain needs fast battleships, at least not for an early war. Decisively winning fleet actions is nice, and being faster than the enemy helps make that happen when conditions are favorable and avoid defeat when conditions are unfavorable, but Great Britain doesn't really need decisive victories in fleet actions to defeat its European neighbors - the Royal Navy can blockade any one, and maybe any two, of the other powers, in the early stages of the game, so as long as we're not losing battles too badly or too regularly, we're winning. That being said, if we do put a handful of battleships into the Mediterranean, then my vote goes to putting fast battleships in the Mediterranean, because it'll be less expensive than losing more period-appropriate first class battleships to a superior French or Italian fleet.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 28, 2018 2:36:18 GMT -6
To be fair, a 15,600t 10" CA with a 7" belt and 24kn design speed is little, if any, less of a proto-BC than an 11" or 12" CA of similar displacement would be, especially in 1899-1900. Either way, it's big enough to be a contemporary first class battleship and fast enough to be a cutting-edge cruiser, and it'll either be armed as well as a contemporary first class battleship with 'merely' armor comparable to a first class cruiser, or it'll be armed about as well as a contemporary second class or coastal battleship and carry armor intermediate between contemporary first class cruisers and contemporary first class battleships. At most, the difference here is one of degree, not kind, and considering just how big, how fast, and how heavily armored the proposed 10" CA is, I don't know that I'd even call it that - a 2x2x10" CA that large and that well armored is essentially the predreadnought version of the German-style battlecruiser whereas the 11" or 12" CA is more or less the predreadnought version of the British-style battlecruiser. Also, since you're objecting to 20-21kn battleships on the grounds that those are cruiser speeds in 1900, I'd point out that 24kn is outside the range of historical first class cruiser speeds in 1900. 24kn is at best at the extreme high end of second class and scout cruiser speeds in 1900, insofar as sustainable speeds go, and a large first class cruiser would be unlikely to exceed 22 knots. Even the 19 knots of your proposed battleship is pretty fast for an 1899-1900 battleship, and only slightly slow for an 1899-1900 cruiser. The large armoured cruisers are something I wanted to bring up. I'd like to cut down the size of this force, probably by leaving the two that we start out with but getting rid of the two under construction and replacing them with the protected fleet cruisers that have been advocated here, perhaps along with a couple of extra battleships. The reason for this is that of all ship types at the start of the game, armoured cruisers advance the fastest, mostly due to the availability of heavier armament. A 16,000 ton armoured cruiser under construction in 1900 would be so outclassed by a comparable vessel that we could lay down in 1902 as to render it out-dated almost as soon as it was completed, and by about 1904 we could lay down ships that would render it thoroughly obsolete (for example, the 18,000 ton Spartiate that I linked earlier.) By contrast, pre-dreadnought design will advance less, (and in any case I'm sure that everyone will agree we cannot avoid the obligation of building those) and protected cruisers almost not at all, so that a protected cruiser laid down in 1900 would be functionally very similar to one laid down in 1904, and would not be superseded until light cruisers come along after 1910. In my view, it is therefore better to invest relatively heavily in pre-dreadnoughts and protected cruisers at the start of the game, and then to invest heavily in armoured cruisers from about 1901 - 1906.
|
|