Pre-dreadnought design

[generalvikus]

Traditionally, in my pre-dreadnought design, I have begun by assuming that Fischer's conclusions about the nature of battleship combat in that age were fundamentally correct, and that they were applicable to the period beginning with the start of the game and ending with the dawning of the dreadnought age: big guns matter, and intermediate sized weapons do not.



I have therefore adopted a strategy which I have termed the 'dreadnought school' : since a fleet of dreadnoughts is ideal but unattainable, come as close as possible to a fleet of dreadnoughts in the pre-dreadnought age. According to this standpoint, the decisive factor in a battleship engagement is the number of heavy guns on each side. Each ship must carry four heavy guns in two turrets. Therefore, the most efficient method is to put as many hulls into the water as possible, and anything which does not contribute to the achievement of that goal superfluous. Armour should be no greater than 9 inches on the belt and turret face, and 1 - 1.5 inches on the deck and turret roof; that will be sufficient to protect the ship for as long as it is relevant, and future - proofing a pre-dreadnought is considered to be a contradiction in terms. Three or four inch guns are considered to be adequate for anti - torpedo boat defense; no intermediate armament is necessary.
Speed greater than 18 knots is of little practical value. 


One advantage of this school of thought is that it does not need to take advantage of any of the technological innovations that come between the pre-dreadnought and dreadnought eras; the ideal pre-dreadnought of 1905 is identical in design to the ideal pre-dreadnought of 1900, and the small weight savings achieved in the interim can go into increasing the ammunition load or decreasing the cost. Of course, this can equally be seen as a disadvantage: there is no room for qualitative improvement.

Perhaps ironically, the ideas which I have termed 'the dreadnought school' are almost diametrically opposed to the series of incremental improvements which culminated in the dreadnought itself. We can refer to this alternative way of thinking as the 'semi - dreadnought school' ; the idea that, in a battle between ships of equal heavy armament, the intermediate armament of 7 - 10 inch guns will be the deciding factor. 

Recent reading on the forums and elsewhere has caused me to call into question my previous beliefs. Firstly, I have learned that not everybody drew the same lessons from Tsushima. To quote wikipedia: 

"French analyses of the Russian defeat by the Japanese at the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905 credited the latter's victory to the large number of medium-caliber hits that heavily damaged the superstructures of the Russian ships and started many fires that the crews had difficulty extinguishing. The superior speed and handling of the Japanese ships was also credited with a role in their victory." 

I think the major point of debate between these schools can be summarised as follows. The defining feature of the pre-dreadnought age in comparison to the rest of the game is that the balance between firepower and armour is skewed decisively in favour of armour. The response of the 'dreadnought school' is to maximise the number of heavy guns that have the opportunity to penetrate the enemy belt and turrets. By contrast, the response of the 'semi - dreadnought school' is to give up on trying very hard to penetrate the enemy belt and turrets, and to instead neutralise the enemy by maximising the amount of damage that can be done to the other parts of the enemy ship. 

As well as the obvious question of whether one school is better than the other, there are several questions that can be asked about either school which might influence one's ultimate decision:

1. Is it worth using more than 2 inches of BE armour in the early game in order to resist medium calibre? How does this factor impact the difference between the two schools, since the 'dreadnought school' would naturally prefer to fight at longer ranges, whereas the latter would naturally prefer to close the range? 

2. On a related note: are guns of 7 - 10 inches really the most efficient weapons? Is it worth sacrificing rate of fire in order to have the potential to penetrating the enemy BE armour and to inflict more damage for any given hit? Might a more numerous battery of 6 inch guns be more efficient?

3. What are the implications of the 'HE spam' strategy for pre-dreadnought combat? Is the effect of high - explosive shells maximised by larger and heavier or smaller, faster firing weapons? 

My interest in the possibilities of intermediate weapons and the peculiar circumstances of my most recent game as Germany led to my development of an intriguing third solution: the 'dreadnought cruiser' school. Super - cruisers had long been a staple of mine ever since I became enamoured with the story of eserchie's famous 'Spartiates' in the best ship design thread, but the innovation in my last game was to take the 'semi-dreadnought school' to its logical conclusion, and abandon the heavy guns altogether in favour of the maximum possible intermediate battery. I decided to forgo building the last generation of semi-dreadnoughts in favour of a generation of 16,000 ton Blucher - like 'dreadnought armoured cruisers' armed with 9 inch guns, well armoured enough to stand up in the battle line and fast enough to perform the duties of an armoured cruiser at the same time. In the event, these vessels successfully contributed to my only ever decisive battle of the pre-dreadnought age, helping to wipe out the Russian battle fleet in a 1905 Tsushima - esque battle in the Baltic. However, since my pre-existing 'dreadnought school' fleet provided the majority of the firepower in that battle, and since many of the Russian battleships were particularly poorly - armoured, the overall viability of the intermediate guns is still in question. 

And, since that was the only really decisive battle within my experience of the pre-dreadnought era, there is little more that I can say on the topic; so with that, I yield the floor. 

[noshurviverse]

Welp, lost my response to a power outage, second try.

Three or four inch guns are considered to be adequate for anti - torpedo boat defense; no intermediate armament is necessary.

Typically with my early game designs, I utilize a relatively heavy 5-6 inch secondary battery, with a smaller 3-4 inch tertiary. This means that in a typical fleet battle the main guns can focus on their counterparts, the secondaries can engage enemy cruisers and the tertiary focus on repelling encroaching destroyers.  During smaller battles the amount of fire on any single target will be increased. As technology advances and RoF, accuracy and destroyers improve, I'll usually lose the tertiary battery and make the secondaries pull double duty.

Speed greater than 18 knots is of little practical value.

I disagree. My school of design holds that speed is perhaps one of the most valuable assets a ship can posses. With a speed advantage, a ship can almost always dictate the terms of an engagement. If the enemy is encounter in greater strength, then the fleet will simply refuse to give battle. If an even fight begins to turn against us, then disengagement is a simple affair. And of course, small enemy formations can be chased down. Another benefit is that a couple knots of speed lost to battle damage is not particularly crippling to the fleet's ability.

1. Is it worth using more than 2 inches of BE armour in the early game in order to resist medium calibre? How does this factor impact the difference between the two schools, since the 'dreadnought school' would naturally prefer to fight at longer ranges, whereas the latter would naturally prefer to close the range?

For the early game, I think so. The amount of hits I get on BE by medium calibers is usually enough that I value being able to bounce those. In design I sometimes use a system of "invalidation armoring", where I will consider my armor layout based on what armament I am invalidating with the purchasing of it. So I will ask myself "Is the weight requirement of effectively removing enemy 7" guns from the battle equation worth it?" In early game I usually consider that a yes, but later on that becomes a no.

 2. On a related note: are guns of 7 - 10 inches really the most efficient weapons? Is it worth sacrificing rate of fire in order to have the potential to penetrating the enemy BE armour and to inflict more damage for any given hit? Might a more numerous battery of 6 inch guns be more efficient?

7, 8 and 9 inch guns are probably my least commonly constucted caliber, with the exception of some protected CLs that utilize a trio of 7 inchers. I generally find that the need to armor them to avoid flash fires and their ineffectiveness against destroyers makes them more trouble than they're worth.

3. What are the implications of the 'HE spam' strategy for pre-dreadnought combat? Is the effect of high - explosive shells maximised by larger and heavier or smaller, faster firing weapons?

I experimented with this design during a recent Spain playthrough. These ships were designed for mid to close range fire, with a near complete focus on HE fire. Experience showed that at once they got into a position where all their guns were capable of being brought to bear on a target, that ship was overwhelmed by the sheer number of hits. In addition, anything smaller than a B was in extreme peril if facing down this class, for rather obvious reasons.

[dorn]

Feb 12, 2019 9:08:18 GMT -6 generalvikus said:

Traditionally, in my pre-dreadnought design, I have begun by assuming that Fischer's conclusions about the nature of battleship combat in that age were fundamentally correct, and that they were applicable to the period beginning with the start of the game and ending with the dawning of the dreadnought age: big guns matter, and intermediate sized weapons do not.



I have therefore adopted a strategy which I have termed the 'dreadnought school' : since a fleet of dreadnoughts is ideal but unattainable, come as close as possible to a fleet of dreadnoughts in the pre-dreadnought age. According to this standpoint, the decisive factor in a battleship engagement is the number of heavy guns on each side. Each ship must carry four heavy guns in two turrets. Therefore, the most efficient method is to put as many hulls into the water as possible, and anything which does not contribute to the achievement of that goal superfluous. Armour should be no greater than 9 inches on the belt and turret face, and 1 - 1.5 inches on the deck and turret roof; that will be sufficient to protect the ship for as long as it is relevant, and future - proofing a pre-dreadnought is considered to be a contradiction in terms. Three or four inch guns are considered to be adequate for anti - torpedo boat defense; no intermediate armament is necessary.
Speed greater than 18 knots is of little practical value. 


One advantage of this school of thought is that it does not need to take advantage of any of the technological innovations that come between the pre-dreadnought and dreadnought eras; the ideal pre-dreadnought of 1905 is identical in design to the ideal pre-dreadnought of 1900, and the small weight savings achieved in the interim can go into increasing the ammunition load or decreasing the cost. Of course, this can equally be seen as a disadvantage: there is no room for qualitative improvement.

Perhaps ironically, the ideas which I have termed 'the dreadnought school' are almost diametrically opposed to the series of incremental improvements which culminated in the dreadnought itself. We can refer to this alternative way of thinking as the 'semi - dreadnought school' ; the idea that, in a battle between ships of equal heavy armament, the intermediate armament of 7 - 10 inch guns will be the deciding factor. 

Recent reading on the forums and elsewhere has caused me to call into question my previous beliefs. Firstly, I have learned that not everybody drew the same lessons from Tsushima. To quote wikipedia: 

"French analyses of the Russian defeat by the Japanese at the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905 credited the latter's victory to the large number of medium-caliber hits that heavily damaged the superstructures of the Russian ships and started many fires that the crews had difficulty extinguishing. The superior speed and handling of the Japanese ships was also credited with a role in their victory." 

I think the major point of debate between these schools can be summarised as follows. The defining feature of the pre-dreadnought age in comparison to the rest of the game is that the balance between firepower and armour is skewed decisively in favour of armour. The response of the 'dreadnought school' is to maximise the number of heavy guns that have the opportunity to penetrate the enemy belt and turrets. By contrast, the response of the 'semi - dreadnought school' is to give up on trying very hard to penetrate the enemy belt and turrets, and to instead neutralise the enemy by maximising the amount of damage that can be done to the other parts of the enemy ship. 

As well as the obvious question of whether one school is better than the other, there are several questions that can be asked about either school which might influence one's ultimate decision:

1. Is it worth using more than 2 inches of BE armour in the early game in order to resist medium calibre? How does this factor impact the difference between the two schools, since the 'dreadnought school' would naturally prefer to fight at longer ranges, whereas the latter would naturally prefer to close the range? 

2. On a related note: are guns of 7 - 10 inches really the most efficient weapons? Is it worth sacrificing rate of fire in order to have the potential to penetrating the enemy BE armour and to inflict more damage for any given hit? Might a more numerous battery of 6 inch guns be more efficient?

3. What are the implications of the 'HE spam' strategy for pre-dreadnought combat? Is the effect of high - explosive shells maximised by larger and heavier or smaller, faster firing weapons? 

My interest in the possibilities of intermediate weapons and the peculiar circumstances of my most recent game as Germany led to my development of an intriguing third solution: the 'dreadnought cruiser' school. Super - cruisers had long been a staple of mine ever since I became enamoured with the story of eserchie's famous 'Spartiates' in the best ship design thread, but the innovation in my last game was to take the 'semi-dreadnought school' to its logical conclusion, and abandon the heavy guns altogether in favour of the maximum possible intermediate battery. I decided to forgo building the last generation of semi-dreadnoughts in favour of a generation of 16,000 ton Blucher - like 'dreadnought armoured cruisers' armed with 9 inch guns, well armoured enough to stand up in the battle line and fast enough to perform the duties of an armoured cruiser at the same time. In the event, these vessels successfully contributed to my only ever decisive battle of the pre-dreadnought age, helping to wipe out the Russian battle fleet in a 1905 Tsushima - esque battle in the Baltic. However, since my pre-existing 'dreadnought school' fleet provided the majority of the firepower in that battle, and since many of the Russian battleships were particularly poorly - armoured, the overall viability of the intermediate guns is still in question. 

And, since that was the only really decisive battle within my experience of the pre-dreadnought era, there is little more that I can say on the topic; so with that, I yield the floor. 

Firstly in pre-dreadnought era, volume of fire is important usually more than caliber as even the main guns usually do not penetrate main belt.

Your pre-dreadnought is possible and it could fight well as long as you do not fight against numerically competetive nation with standard type pre-dreadnought.

ad 1. it is worth using more armor on DE as even low armored BE could protect against 8-10" guns and it is possible to armor BE enough to protect even against main guns at moderate distance.

ad 2. 7-10" guns are very usefull as they give you volume of fire, practically more than double your broadside.

ad 3. The strategy is to start fires as pre-dreadnoughts are very vulnarable to fires, more than dreadnoughts. And because it is very difficult to penetrate main belt you can have 2 strategy - either sink throug flooding outside the main belt armor or destroyed superstructure enough making pre-dreadnought dead in water.

Relating your "dreadnought cruiser" school, the main issue is that to do either of strategy describe "ad 3" you need as large as possible volume of fire. But cruisers use the free tonnage for engines so you need to comprimise on armor or firepower. If you compromise firepower than you obviously do less damage, start less fire, less flooding. If you compromise mainly armor, than you are in danger that pre-dreadnought main guns would penetrate your main belt, which is even more dangerous.

You can certainly use that strategy however you cannot fight pre-dreadnoughts 1:1 as you will be in disadvantage position.

[boomboomf22]

Not gonna be as detailed as the others but I have historically had a sweet spot for the 7" gun on my designs. I have found it to be a reasonably effective weapon in the predread era, especially as I find it packs enough of a punch over a 6" to justify the extra weight and loss in rate of fire.

Due to the crappy metallurgy of the early period I have found success firing both he and ap, as BE is often not thick enough on AI designs to stop 7" AP at close (aka standard for the period) range.

As for armoring BE I do often make BE on predreads thick enough to withstand at least 7" guns, often against the main battery tho only at the start. However if I have to save weight it is the first to be reduced after D and DE has been brought down to 1"

[JagdFlanker]

reading this thread i just realized i never build proper pre-dreadnaughts - i very rarely use secondaries bigger than 6" to save on needing armour for them, with the exception of when i hit 'ship design lvl2' i sometimes add 4 double secondaries with guns 1" less than my mains.  however even without the extra firepower my ships do pretty well, due to the extra speed and armour

my starting fleet B is dictated by the size of my docks (i never build ships in other countries, i play with a lot of self imposed restrictions) and i retire them to patrolling my colonies as soon as i get 4+ of the next class

happen to be playing France right now so get pretty decent starting B's with 16,000t to work with

and the 2nd fully armoured class of B is my workhorse until i get BC/BB (i play at 10% research so it takes a while).  i add tertiary guns to fill out extra tonnage.  over armoured?  maybe, but they can tank damage really well, (usually) take a torp hit or even 2, and i never get flash fires.  i build them to last

(screenshots taken in 1914, which is why there's lots of spare tonnage)

[noshurviverse]

Feb 12, 2019 14:42:06 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

reading this thread i just realized i never build proper pre-dreadnaughts - i very rarely use secondaries bigger than 6" to save on needing armour for them, with the exception of when i hit 'ship design lvl2' i sometimes add 4 double secondaries with guns 1" less than my mains.  however even without the extra firepower my ships do pretty well, due to the extra speed and armour

According to Fredrick's Tidbits, or at least my interpretation of it, casemates can take hits that originally would hit the hull. I'd personally consider giving them a couple inches, even if it's just to prevent them from being knocked out my 3" guns or splinters.

Casemates add some slight protection to the hull compared to secondary turrets.

[aeson]

Feb 12, 2019 14:42:06 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

reading this thread i just realized i never build proper pre-dreadnaughts - i very rarely use secondaries bigger than 6" to save on needing armour for them, with the exception of when i hit 'ship design lvl2' i sometimes add 4 double secondaries with guns 1" less than my mains.

The implication of your statement seems to be that 'proper' predreadnoughts need secondary guns heavier than 6", but the ~12" main + ~6" secondaries + tertiaries without an intermediate battery pattern is one of the most common predreadnought patterns historically. Assuming Wikipedia's lists are reasonably accurate and complete, 29 of the Royal Navy's 52 pre- and semi-dreadnought battleships, 7 of the Marine National's 17 pre- and semi-dreadnought battleships, 6 of the US Navy's 21 (or 25, if counting the coastal defense battleships) pre- and semi-dreadnought battleships, 8 of the Japanese Navy's 15 pre- and semi-dreadnought battleships, and 15 of the Imperial Russian Navy's 28 pre- and semi-dreadnought battleships more or less fit a 2x2x~12" main + ~6" secondary + light tertiaries pattern.

The 'weird' thing about the predreadnought designs you've shown isn't their armament, it's their speed - 22 knots is quite fast for the period, especially with armor and armament as heavy as you've used.

[dorn]

My pre-dreadnoughts are quite opposite.

There are relatively slow about 17-19 knots as higher speed is usually not usefull enough for that tonnage.

However the main difference is armor layout. I usually use several principles:

1. Deck armor - I use deck armor 1.5" maximum, usually only 1" deck armor - the reason is simple, no gun could penetrate even 1" of deck armor for long time and at that time it could be done, pre-dreadnoughts are usually delegated to support role. Someone can argue that 1 or 1.5" of armor does not protect ship against splinters but in pre-dreadnought era it is very unlucky and very improbable hit. The 0.5-1" of deck armor saves around 400-800 tons of weight.

2. Deck extended armor - 1" seems quite adequate

3. Secondary guns and protection - it depends sometimes I use 6" guns, sometimes 7" guns. When there is possibility to build semidreadnought, sometimes I build them with heavily secondary armament of 8-10" guns. The protection of cassametes are usually high enough to protect against 10" guns if I use caliber 7" and higher. If I use 6" guns there are usuallly protected against protected cruisers.

4. Main belt armor and turret armor - I usually use 8-10" of armor which is at start of game quite adequate

5. Etended belt armor - I usually use enough armor to protect against armored cruisers

5. armor scheme - I use several options, either standard turtlebak armor or complete protection with narrow belt so that extended part of belt is almost as thick as main belt. The other possibility I used is flat deck on top as it protect more volume which is important for pre-dreadnoughts as it helps protect ship against fires and they are achilles heel of pre-dreadnoughts.

Some examples I used:

Standard pre-dreadnought:

Standard semi-drednought:

Non-standard pre-dreadnought used for colonial duties (faster, lighter):

As you can see armor is priority, than armament, speed is low priority as 1 or 2 knots does not make difference.

[mobeer]

My pre-dreadnoughts are all built on the basis that they will quickly become obsolescent when dreadnoughts enter service. I therefore split them into two:

1) 17 knot cheap ships with just enough armour for the period
2) 22 knot upgrade with a little more armour

Group 1 ships are scrapped as soon as BB battleships or BC battlecruisers become available.
Group 2 are fast enough to keep up with newer designs so can remain in service longer but still quickly become obsolete when ships with 8 gun (3*2, 4*1 wing) broadsides become established.

For smaller nations like Japan that start with just 10" guns it is possible to build much smaller designs to save money. Since battleships tend to deploy into battle as a division of 2 ships, having 2 of these can compete with single battleships deployed by European powers.

Three examples of the above are attached, all designed with game start tech. In game, the group 2 ships are built a little later with better tech.

[JagdFlanker]

the main reason i make 22kt B's is that i use them to garrison my colonies (all other ship types only deploy with my single main fleet), and early game they can catch up to enemy CA/CL's and blow them out of the water

it's gaming the system a bit, but i always have a smaller fleet than the ai so i usually get blockaded, and i need all the VPs i can get

[skyhawk]

The trio of designs above have engines designed for speed...something I've actively avoided doing given how many issues they tend to have while on distant station or during a drawn out battle. Who else designs Bs for speed and if you have how much success have you had compared to using normal or reliable engines?

And how often do you have Bs intercepting cruisers while on distant station? Cause I've never had that happen with any predred or dred. BCs yes, Bs and BBs no.

[sittingduck]

Feb 13, 2019 14:47:44 GMT -6 skyhawk said:

The trio of designs above have engines designed for speed...something I've actively avoided doing given how many issues they tend to have while on distant station or during a drawn out battle. Who else designs Bs for speed and if you have how much success have you had compared to using normal or reliable engines?

And how often do you have Bs intercepting cruisers while on distant station? Cause I've never had that happen with any predred or dred. BCs yes, Bs and BBs no.

Couldn't agree more.  I only use Speed engines on DD's.  I can't afford to have anything larger pulled into the docks with engine problems.

[dorn]

I use engines tuned for speed quite often.

pre-dreadnoughts/armored cruisers/protected cruisers - I do not use it as they are already slow and the engines do not take so much tonnage.

dreadnoughts - as soon as I have oil fired ships I use engines tuned for speed. I have no problem with it and there is no decrease of speed.

battlecruisers - I almost always used engines tuned for speed as this save a lot of tonnage and with carefully planning you do not need maximum speed all time. And as you have oil fired ships there is no more the issue.

light cruisers - I use engines tuned for speed for cruisers that operate in areas of my bases. There is no reason not to use it with oil fired ships. With coal fired ships it is more complicated as decrease of speed after some time could have negative consequences but usually my cruisers in areas with bases are strong enough that they do not need to withdraw from battle using maximum speed for long time.

I would more worry in 3 designs about belt extended as they have only splinter protection. In time of predreadnoughts when it is difficult to sing capital ships by gunfire this is weakness as usually medium caliber guns could penetrate BE and in short range even 6" guns could do it.

The second thing is low freebord. In bad weather ship would be not so efficient. It is more coastal battleship.

[director]

I once played out a game in which the US stuck to a heavy secondary armament. I wound up building ships like 35,000-ton battlecruisers with 6x12" guns and 12x10". I found that their combat effectiveness was not great - the smothering potential of the heavy secondary was more than offset by the time it took to get secondary directors. Against true dreadnoughts they struggled, unable to hand out as many heavy-caliber hits as they were receiving and unable to make many medium-caliber hits at anything past point-blank range.

[Deleted]

Feb 20, 2019 19:33:28 GMT -6 director said:

I once played out a game in which the US stuck to a heavy secondary armament. I wound up building ships like 35,000-ton battlecruisers with 6x12" guns and 12x10". I found that their combat effectiveness was not great - the smothering potential of the heavy secondary was more than offset by the time it took to get secondary directors. Against true dreadnoughts they struggled, unable to hand out as many heavy-caliber hits as they were receiving and unable to make many medium-caliber hits at anything past point-blank range.

I cant say that this is a surprise to me. Main guns and big secondaries screws each others accuracy to the point when 6x12 main gun ship would be probably more effective with no secondaries at all than with big secondaries like that.