|
Post by dorn on Apr 4, 2019 7:43:12 GMT -6
COMPETITION 1915/13/BC - 2 battlecruisers - role: operation alone or as part of battlecruiser force and ability to engage enemy battleships in favor conditions
- speed: at least 26 knots, Royal Navy is willing thinking of speed up to 29 knots - firepower: at least 6x14" broadside - no torpedo tubes - protection against own guns at least between 14,000 and 18,000 yards (70 % of sloped deck thickness could be considered as part of vertical protection) - at least 8x4" anti-DD broadside or equivalent with at least 5 guns on broadside (only guns up to 6" are considered as anti-DD) - all forward guns arrangement is prohibited for role-playing purposes till 1920 GENERAL CONDITIONS:- any shipyard can provide up to 3 designs (the third design need to distinguish itself from the first two designs) - any shipyard will provide design picture and design file (*.40d) - any shipyard are recommended to provide explanation of design futures Evaluation will be done based on overall firepower, protection and costs. Deadline for proposals - the 8 of April however I close the competition as soon as I get your designs. If you need more time, just mentioned it. note for calculation of broadside (b) and turret firepower (f) f1, f2, f3, f4 ... turrets firepower b = f1+f2+f3+f4 fi = q * k * n * c ^ 3 for each turret
note: Request is to counter new designs commissioned till last our battleship and battlecruiser and ships under construction. To save money for dedicated battelship and battlecruiser, this design should combine advantages of both
n ... number of guns in turret c ... guns caliber k = 1 for double turret, k = 0.9 for triple turret q = 1 for Q0 guns, 0.9 for Q-1 guns, 1.1 for Q+1 guns
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Apr 4, 2019 9:05:43 GMT -6
The following designs represent N3's entries for the Battle-cruiser competition.
Proposal G5 The G5 is a balanced design, carrying eight 15" guns in two triple and one twin turret mountings. Armor is designed to allow the G5 to stand up to rounds of such a caliber, even though no opponent presently utilizes such a ship. A half-dozen 5" guns on each side provide defense against enemy destroyers. Proposal G6 The G6 is a slimmed down G5, removing one gun from the aft turret to allow for a reduction in displacement and a minor increase in turret armor.
Proposal G7 The G7 takes a different approach to the design problem. Machinery and armor weight is instead exchanged for additional armaments, allowing the G7 to mount a total of eleven 15" guns along the centerline. Of note is that this design has only marginally higher costs (<+1%) to produce than the G5 while representing a 37% increase in gun barrels levied on target.
Attachments:bcs.zip (84.33 KB)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 4, 2019 17:46:14 GMT -6
Balsa Construction is pleased to present for the Admiralty's consideration the following three battlecruiser proposals: 1915/13/BC.1: Courageous Courageous is well-suited to standing in the van of the battle line, with its heavy armor giving it an estimated zone of immunity against its own guns from just under 11,000 yards to well over 20,000 and its six 15" giving it a heavier broadside than any extant battleship or battlecruiser other than the French Devastation and the Royal Navy's own Gorgo and Incomparable. A secondary battery of no fewer than eighteen 5" guns in six triple turrets, three on each side, and a comprehensive torpedo protection system safeguard the ship against attack by an enemy's light forces while its design speed of 27 knots represents an incremental improvement on the Navy's current battlecruisers and should be sufficient to compete with the battlecruisers of foreign powers.
1915/13/BC.2: Inflexible A more economical variation upon Courageous, Inflexible maintains the speed and armament but sacrifices some armor - reducing its estimated zone of immunity against its own guns to between about 12,000 and 20,000 yards - in exchange for an approximately 15% decrease in total construction costs - a savings of about 19.5 million pounds per ship.
1915/13/BC.3: Indefatigable Indefatigable adds a third main battery turret in the forward superfiring position, giving it a 50% advantage in weight of broadside over Courageous and Inflexible - and doubling their throw weight on the forward arc - while costing approximately as much as Courageous and being about as well protected as Inflexible.
Attachments:Proposals.zip (96.97 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 8, 2019 0:45:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Apr 8, 2019 21:37:00 GMT -6
I will try and have something later this morning
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Apr 9, 2019 0:52:27 GMT -6
Buchanan Iron Works is honoured to present the following designs for their Lordship's consideration: Foreign Designs - Looking at Italian and American designs, these designs are all less powerful than the Admiralty's requirements. The Italian battlecruiser Lepanto is faster than the minimal requirement, but has weaker armament and is not as effectively armoured. The American Lexington, which is apparently different from the Lexington acquired as war reparations, is at the minimum speed, but is also less heavily armed and armoured. Battlecruiser D Design - This is a "traditional" battlecruiser design, but still has a 12.5-inch belt and 3-inch deck for protection against 16-inch guns at anticipated battle ranges (approx. 15,000 yards). Mounting six of the newest Mk. I 16-inch/45 guns in three heavily armoured turrets for survivability, sixteen Mk. VII 6-inch/45 secondary guns in dual mounts, these ships have significant offensive and defensive firepower. A new high powered oil-fired powerplant allows these ships to exceed Admiralty requirements for speed. Battlecruiser E Design - Working off of the powerful Design D, this design exchanges the high-powered plant of that design for a less powerful design that is nonetheless able to meet the Admiralty's speed requirement of 26-knots. By using the smaller powerplant, this design is able to have a significantly thicker armoured citadel with a 14% thicker belt. This level of protection approaches Royal Navy and foreign battleships making these ships truly fast battleships. Battlecruiser F Design - Designed to counter foreign battlecruisers with their 13-inch guns, this ship utilizes the Mk.V 13.5-inch/45 guns to counter those adversaries. With a broadside of ten guns, these ships will be able to use the size of their shell pattern to develop more early hits. Their armoured citadel provides a significant immunity zone against their own guns, and an even larger one against the less powerful foreign guns, while still maintaining the battlecrusier squadron standard 26-knots. A powerful secondary battery of sixteen Mk. VII 6-inch/45 guns provides overwhelming defence against enemy destroyers. 1915BC-DEF.ZIP (104.01 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 9, 2019 6:25:24 GMT -6
Congratulation Balsa construction for awarding design Idenfatigable. 2 ships will be laid down.Runner up: Variant D, Courageous
G5, G6, G7 - have very weak horizontal deck or turret protection making them not adequate against their own guns Variant E, F - slow and their protection is not on par with other designs (10x14" are considered just a little better than 6x16")
Inflexible - her savings in costs are not as important as decrease of firepower/protection Variant D - very good design but there are better design in combination of firepower and protection Courageous - verygood design but prefer armour over overall balance
Idenfatigable was choosen because good balance between firepower and protection.
|
|
kch
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by kch on Apr 9, 2019 10:19:51 GMT -6
Just a quick question.. is CT armour irrelevant? I would have thought that it should match the heaviest armour on the vessel to safeguard command and control.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Apr 9, 2019 11:41:33 GMT -6
Just a quick question.. is CT armour irrelevant? I would have thought that it should match the heaviest armour on the vessel to safeguard command and control. CT is, like with almost everything, a subject of debate. My personal belief is that spending a few hundred tons of weight on something that will rarely take a main-caliber hit is wasteful. We debated a bit in this thread: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1881/question-ct-armour?page=1
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 9, 2019 13:43:55 GMT -6
Just a quick question.. is CT armour irrelevant? I would have thought that it should match the heaviest armour on the vessel to safeguard command and control. Hits on the conning tower are in my experience quite rare, and while CT armor probably costs the least tonnage per inch of thickness of any armor on the ship, thick CT armor on a big ship is still quite a lot of tonnage - 14" CT armor on Indefatigable would have cost 489 tons whereas 2" CT armor only costs 70. Indefatigable has about 26 tons to spare, so increasing CT armor to 14" requires finding an additional ~400 tons. Where should those ~400 tons come from?
Other armor protection? Linear interpolation of current in-game gun penetration data suggests that a British ship armed with 15"/Q0 guns needs at least 13.2" vertical and 3" horizontal protection to meet the requirement of being resistant to its own guns between 14,000 and 18,000 yards, ergo Indefatigable cannot give up any deck (D) armor and can only spare a half inch of belt (B) or turret face (T) armor (it's using Flat Deck over Belt and so cannot count 70% of the deck thickness towards vertical protection as the design specification allows; that said, switching over to Sloped Deck means finding a further ~400 tons on top of the ~400 tons needed to increase CT armor to 14"). Indefatigable also lacks any extension armor (BE or DE) whatsoever, and its secondary battery has as little armor as the game will allow an armored secondary battery to have. 13.5" B/T/CT would work, as would 12.5" B and 14" T/CT with a 3" Sloped Deck, but it's cutting the margins a bit fine on a ship whose armor protection is already fairly close to the minimum specified in the design requirement and leaves very little leeway for improving gun performance over the period in which the ship is built, let alone over its service life.
Reduction in the size/caliber of the secondary battery and in main battery ammunition stowage? With 1" armor protection, 16x1x4", 8x2x4", 10x1x5", and 5x2x5" are only marginally lighter than 4x3x5" (by somewhere around 20 to 50 tons); Indefatigable gains about 75 tons for every 5 rounds/gun of main battery ammunition stowage it gives up, but it only has 110 rounds/gun of main battery ammunition stowage in the first place. Probably not a good place to look for ~400 tons for increased CT armor.
Reduction in speed or torpedo protection? The requirement specifies a minimum design speed of 26 knots so Indefatigable could free up enough tonnage for heavier CT armor by dropping a knot and still remain within specification, and there is no explicit torpedo protection requirement so presumably dropping from Torpedo Defense 1 (the best available in British yards, and also the level on Indefatigable) to Torpedo Defense 0 would be acceptable. Personally, I'd rather have the extra knot and Torpedo Defense 1 than only one or the other and 14" CT armor.
Reduction in main battery armament? Possible, but reducing the main battery from 3x3 to 323 frees up almost a thousand tons by itself - far more than the 400 needed for increasing the CT armor to 14", but probably not enough more to make any significant improvements to the ship's other qualities. Might still be a decent idea, since under dorn's firepower computation formula 3x3 isn't actually much better than 4x2 and ABVY/ABXY can be done with a 14" CT while more or less maintaining Indefatigable's qualities otherwise.
I personally feel that CT hits are rare enough that it's not really worth sacrificing something else for it - especially because CT hits aren't the only hits that damage command and control (there's also bridge hits, which I feel are roughly as likely as CT hits and do all the same kinds of things that CT hits do, and hits on fire control positions, which 'only' damage the ship's fire control systems) and because, while I don't know that it's actually modeled in the game, realistically speaking there's a decent chance that it's better for the CT armor to light enough as to allow heavy shells to overpenetrate than it is for the CT armor to be insufficiently heavy to exclude the shell while still being heavy enough to initiate the fuse and make it unlikely for the shell to overpenetrate. Early in the game, CT armor heavy enough to prevent most or all hits from penetrating the conning tower is doable and doesn't cost too much tonnage, but towards the middle of the game that starts becoming less practical - CT armor gets heavier per inch of thickness as ship sizes increase and the thickness of armor necessary to provide an adequate level of protection against heavy guns increases as heavy guns get larger and more powerful - and in the late game you eventually reach a point where even the maximum thickness of armor allowed by the game really only provides very marginal protection against the heavy guns actually used on contemporary warships.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 9, 2019 13:55:17 GMT -6
Just a quick question.. is CT armour irrelevant? I would have thought that it should match the heaviest armour on the vessel to safeguard command and control. There are 2 opinions and they cannot be told that one is better than another except some circumstances, it sometimes matter of taste.
However there is several things need to consider: - probability of CT - very very low - range of fight - very long. This means that even if CT is destroyed, ship is far enought to take decisive hits for time she is not under control - design possibilities - if you have docks quite large than you design a ship and you can compare design with and without CT and compare costs. So after that you just decided if armoured CT is worth the costs. However if you space is limited you need to find tonnage elsewhere and you need to compare advantage of armoured CT which is a lot of tonnage vs. something else. Usually armoured CT has less value.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 9, 2019 14:01:34 GMT -6
I would probably prefer turret layout of G5 or G6 designs however their armour layout are not good enough. 2" of extended armour is waste as it cannot defend against long range hits and in short to medium range chance getting deck hit is low so it is waste of tonnage. I would probably prefer more something between Identafigable and Courageous design but there was no such a design.
Relating to 0.9 coef for triple turrets is a little harsh, could be probably 0.95. It is questionable as 3x2 is still better than 2x3 for firepower view.
|
|
kch
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by kch on Apr 9, 2019 14:09:58 GMT -6
Thanks for the replies.. I have much to learn ;-)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 9, 2019 15:19:51 GMT -6
If you are willing to participate in next competition you are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 10, 2019 3:33:10 GMT -6
Tension slowly rises
12/1915 – HMS Indefatigable is laid down by Balsa Construction 2/1916 – France has laid down battleship of Tourville class (35.700 tons) 2/1916 – HMS Invincible is laid down by Balsa Construction 3/1916 – 1500 tons destroyer design is prepared 3/1916 – HMS Incomparable, HMS Gorgo and 6 destroyers are transferred to Malta, HMS Resolution is reactivated 3/1916 – our intelligence get plans of Linois class cruiser – 4500 tons, 28 knots, 2x6“, 6x4“ guns, 2 submerged torpedo tubes, 3“ belt, 1“ deck, 2“ CT, 1“ battery armour 3/1916 – our intelligence reports that Tourville class battleship has design speed of 25 knots 5/1916 – Improved gyroscope invented 5/1916 – Admiralty decided to invest to larger docks 5/1916 – A regional war seems imminent in Balkans. One of our major arms manufactures wants to step up exports to likely belligerents. First Lord approved that. 7/1916 – Russia has laid down Izmail class battlecruiser (32100 tons) 8/1916 – One of Admirals proposed that as guns are going to be more powerful, we should put maximum armour to our citadel and no armour to any not important areas on our capital ships 9/1916 – One of Admirals proposed we can use superimposed aft turret on our cruiser designs 9/1916 – our new 11“ guns seems to be average quality 9/1916 – Japan has commissioned Itsukushima cruiser (5200 tons, 28 knots, 4x6“ guns, 2.5“ belt armour, 30 mines) 9/1916 – after tension with France increased Admiralty decided to reactivate HMS Dreadnought, HMS Illustrious and older destroyers of Derwent and Rother class 10/1916 – We have bought Improved fuzes from Russia 10/1916 – Secondary director invented 10/1916 – Heavy shells invented 10/1916 – Depth charges invented 10/1916 – Germany has commissioned battleship Lothringen (30100 tons, 23 knots, 12x13“ guns, 11.5“ belt armour) 11/1916 – New cruiser from Italy has just arrived in Plymouth and press is eager to report on all of its advanced features. First Lord comments that if this is best Italy has, we have nothing to fear about. 11/1916 – Reduction gears invented 11/1916 – Balsa construction is expanding dock size to 35000 tons 12/1916 – Improved homogenous armour invented 1/1917 – Germany is hoisting an international regatta, our well trained crew win the race. 1/1917 – Germany has laid down Hindenburg class battleship (35900 tons) 2/1917 – Triple bottom invented 2/1917 – Increased elevation invented 3/1917 – We bought Reliable delay fuzes from Germany 3/1917 – Improved shell wall castings invented 4/1917 – New 38000 tons docks are completed 5/1917 – We bought Ballistic cap from Japan 5/1917 – France as commissioned crusier Jean Bart of Linois class 6/1917 – We bought Torpedo protection II from Russia 7/1917 – Early hydrophones invented 7/1917 – USA has commissioned cruiser Chicago of San Francisco class (4900 tons, 28 knots, 5x6“ guns, 3“ belt armour) 7/1917 – Intelligence reports that Messina class cruiser of 5000 tons has speed 26 knots, 2x6“, 10x4“ guns, 2“ belt, deck and CT armour 8/1917 – recent improvements in productivity has boosted our industrial production 9/1917 – Improved shell quality control invented 9/1917 – Quadruple torpedo tube mount invented 9/1917 – Lenghtened torpedoes invented 10/1917 – The rising threat from France persuades parliament to authorize additional funding for the navy 10/1917 – Italy has laid down battlecruiser of Carlo Alberto class (41000 tons) 12/1917 – Improved firefighting equipment invented 12/1917 – Japan has laid down battleship of Tsukuba class (38500 tons) 12/1917 – Germany has commissioned cruiser of Gefion class (5100 tons, 28 knots, 10x4“ guns, 2.5“ belt) 12/1917 – USA has commissioned battlecruiser of Lexington class 1/1918 – USA has commissioned battleship of Oklahoma class (28100 tons, 22 knots, 12x14“ guns, 11“ belt armour) 1/1918 – Japan has commissioned cruiser of Izumo class (14100 tons, 28 knots, 12x10“ guns, 4.5“ belt armour) 2/1918 – USA has laid down Delaware class battleship (32600 tons) 2/1918 – HMS Indefatigable is commissioned 2/1918 – There has been a political murder in the Balkans. Prime Minister demands that the guilty are brought to justice. 3/1918 – First Lord has answered journalist that France is more likely enemy in a future war. 4/1918 – Improved depth charges invented 4/1918 – Admiralty laid down 24 minesweepers 5/1918 – War has broken between Great Britain and France
|
|