|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 28, 2019 20:28:54 GMT -6
In the context again, of the thread's main purpose, a navy's purpose is control of the sea which means sea communications. This essentially means that one side can move ships, conduct overseas maritime trade, interrupt or cut off the enemy's seaborne trade and project your power to his shore. It is rare to have sea control in an open ocean like the Atlantic, Pacific or even the Indian Ocean. We did accomplish this in World War 2 but it was rare. However, in the areas where naval operations have been mainly conducted throughout history and into the 20th century, open ocean's are a rarity but not narrow or enclosed seas. These latter areas are where history's main naval actions have occurred. The Mediterranean, North Sea, Sea of Japan, Yellow Sea etc. These are the main areas of naval operations and the use of interceptive operations can be historically proven to be successful. We think of Tsushima as the climatic decisive battle, which tactically it was, but operationally, it did not decide anything.
There are many solutions to the problem of gaining sea control and maintaining it, my solution is just one, tested by the Naval War College and the IJN War College at Eta Jima. It might have been gamed by the Royal Navy and others, I don't have that information. It has been successful and battlecruisers or similar ships can be the centerpiece of this strategy.
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 7, 2019 21:34:08 GMT -6
I would say that I tend to exploit my knowledge of the game by building a strong battle-line first. I do not build BCs until I can get a nice blend of firepower, defensive strength and speed (27+ knots). That means I build the third type of BC - large sized (the first two are heavy offense/weak defense and weaker offense/strong defense, or the British and German types). I usually build 2 or three and then build a BC for every 4 BB or so... If the enemy has BCs and wants to fight, I can outlast him. If he doesn't want to fight... then I win points in CL actions and BC actions, where my (usually) qualitatively-superior ships can beat an equal number of AI ships.
I have engaged enemy BBs with my BCs - cautiously, and with some success, but usually at the risk of losing some BCs.
As noted above, the Germans did try to separate the British BCs from the main fleet and fall on them with dreadnoughts. Thanks to Beatty's aggressiveness it almost worked - but as soon as he spotted the enemy battleships he reversed course and sped out of danger. So I conclude it was one of those 'workable in theory' concepts.
You know what separates theory from practice, right? In theory there is no difference, but in practice... there is.
|
|
|
Post by klavohunter on Mar 7, 2019 23:04:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 7, 2019 23:32:38 GMT -6
How limiting did you find the 12 inch belt armour cap? Was the extra turret really worth it? I notice that you armed the Thetis with above water torpedo tubes, although one would expect the low belt armour to dictate fighting at even longer range than a normal capital ship. Was that just done as a meme or an experiment?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Mar 7, 2019 23:43:05 GMT -6
Sooo - is it just me, or does anyone else find it interesting that the BB/BC merger coincides with the rise of those pesky, newfangled flying machines?
And, (again) is it just me, or does this 'merger also coincide with the disappearance of (actual) cavalry from the ground forces of major nations?
And, (yet again - let me know when I get boring) is it just me, or did the BC's and cavalry fulfill a similar role in their respective forces: a role those pesky, newfangled flying machines could do much better, I might add?
(Yes, I know this is obvious, but I just wanted see your views on it, since it's not discussed as much.)
Cheers! (and thanks!)
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Mar 8, 2019 11:12:34 GMT -6
In game it definitely works to build all battlecruisers, or mostly battlecruisers and few battleships.
For armour, there is only a restriction on the belt, for which based on mid game stats: 12" belt + 2.5" sloped deck will protect from 12"+1, 13"+0 and 14"-1 guns above 12000 yards, along with 10"+1 at any range Or 12" belt + 2" flat deck protects against 11"+0 above 12000 yards, along with 10"+1 at any range
Turrets can have more armour to protect against larger hits.
Then just add plenty of guns - I like 12 * 14" but 9/10 * 15" works too if the 14"+1 gun is delayed. Damage control becomes a task inflicted on the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 8, 2019 16:23:02 GMT -6
In game it definitely works to build all battlecruisers, or mostly battlecruisers and few battleships. For armour, there is only a restriction on the belt, for which based on mid game stats: 12" belt + 2.5" sloped deck will protect from 12"+1, 13"+0 and 14"-1 guns above 12000 yards, along with 10"+1 at any range Or 12" belt + 2" flat deck protects against 11"+0 above 12000 yards, along with 10"+1 at any range Turrets can have more armour to protect against larger hits. Then just add plenty of guns - I like 12 * 14" but 9/10 * 15" works too if the 14"+1 gun is delayed. Damage control becomes a task inflicted on the enemy. Are you calculating that based on the assumption that the full value of the sloping deck is added to the belt? I've recently tried to find out if this is the case, because there are two important factors which might affect it: firstly, there are important components of the ship that the deck does not protect, and secondly, two consecutive plates of armour of two given thickness are not as strong as a single plate of armour of the same thickness as the two plates combined. So far, nobody has been able to say one way or another exactly how the sloping deck armour works.
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Mar 8, 2019 17:03:56 GMT -6
Are you calculating that based on the assumption that the full value of the sloping deck is added to the belt? I've recently tried to find out if this is the case, because there are two important factors which might affect it: firstly, there are important components of the ship that the deck does not protect, and secondly, two consecutive plates of armour of two given thickness are not as strong as a single plate of armour of the same thickness as the two plates combined. So far, nobody has been able to say one way or another exactly how the sloping deck armour works.
No - I think there is some bonus, but not the whole thickness, and not for all hits. Instead I have been looking at penetration numbers for a current game in the 1920s, then comparing then to armour allowing for small a small benefit to armour from sloping deck and from not being hit exactly square on. The thickness of the deck armour is more about keeping out long range plunging fire.
|
|
|
Post by klavohunter on Mar 10, 2019 11:09:59 GMT -6
How limiting did you find the 12 inch belt armour cap? Was the extra turret really worth it? I notice that you armed the Thetis with above water torpedo tubes, although one would expect the low belt armour to dictate fighting at even longer range than a normal capital ship. Was that just done as a meme or an experiment? The 12" belt was not a terrible limitation, in part because I was on equal ground with the AI who often makes abortions with 10 1/2" belt armor even on 'real' BBs. (Similarly, stupid AI deck armor scheme decisions leave me feeling stronger than them at long range too.)
Another factor is that the 16" guns used by late-game ships is dang near unstoppable without 18" of armor in the way. A penetrating 16" gun hit to the belt armor will often 'only' inflict some flooding damage, whereas a penetrating hit to the Turret puts the gun out of action temporarily or permanently. Since I see my BBs/BCs first and foremost as a means to carry Big Guns into action and keep them in action, the limited belt armor saves me weight to make the turrets as impenetrable as possible.
The greater speed of BCs also gives me a maneuverability advantage, so I can control the engagement against enemy BBs. It also gives me a bigger 'cushion' of speed I can safely lose before becoming fatally slowed.
It's been long enough that I forget what precisely I had in mind when I went into that particular game, but I think I was curious about the same idea the thread OP had: "Is BB still a necessity when BC is so awesome?"
What did you mean by "Was the extra turret really worth it"? I only had 3 triple turrets, same configuration as Iowa and Yamato. I felt that configuration was ideal, and that if I wanted to bring more guns to the fight, I should build an entire extra ship instead of piling Even More Guns onto a single expensive ship. After all, having more, cheaper ships helps spread the damage out across the battle line, and makes losing one ship to a flash fire not a catastrophic loss.
The addition of torpedo tubes came in the very late game, where torpedoes are faster and have a longer range. Closing in to 'medium' range is sufficient for Thetis and other refit BCs to fire spreads of torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 10, 2019 11:59:26 GMT -6
What did you mean by "Was the extra turret really worth it"? I only had 3 triple turrets, same configuration as Iowa and Yamato. I felt that configuration was ideal, and that if I wanted to bring more guns to the fight, I should build an entire extra ship instead of piling Even More Guns onto a single expensive ship. After all, having more, cheaper ships helps spread the damage out across the battle line, and makes losing one ship to a flash fire not a catastrophic loss.
If you have a BC with 3 turrets and more than 12" of belt after 1916, the ship gets reclassified as a BB unless it can reach 30 kts. If you have just two turrets (I generally use a 2x3 AB configuration), the ship would be reclassified as a B, but a B can't be faster than 23 kts, so the BC classification remains. So 3 or more turrets on a late-game BC compromises what you are able to do in terms of protection quite seriously.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 10, 2019 13:47:13 GMT -6
If you have a BC with 3 turrets and more than 12" of belt after 1916, the ship gets reclassified as a BB unless it can reach 30 kts. Minor correction: A three-turret capital ship with more than 12" of belt armor is classified as a BB at a design speed of 30 knots from 1916 onwards. The design speed needs to exceed 30 knots in order for the ship to be classified as a battlecruiser.
|
|
|
Post by klavohunter on Mar 10, 2019 17:47:33 GMT -6
Oh, that's the easy part.
I never used more than 12" of belt armor, so my ships were still classed as BCs even though they were all designed to 'only' make 28 knots.
Perhaps if the AI didn't choose to make all of their capital ships into the crack-baby cousins of Amagi, I wouldn't have been able to dunk on them so thoroughly...
|
|
|
Post by barrybull on Mar 11, 2019 6:30:18 GMT -6
Interesting, I very much prefer fast BB than BCs in late game when the speed of BBs increase to a point that they can catch up with enemy BCs via the assistance of my better trained own light forces. The BBs survive exchange of fire with enemy BCs that are equipped with same or larger caliber guns and allow me to win the battle with less capital ships than my enemy.
Playing rich country like USA, I usually build more fast BBs than BCs from mid to late game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 9:24:30 GMT -6
I tend to build 1:1 numbers of BBs and BCs. BCs are super fast (28 knots for the first generation, 32 or 33 for the last), but with less armour, BBs are slow (22-24kts until the last generation, which I tend to build as a fast BBs). But generaly my BBs and BC look almost the same from outside.
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 16, 2019 22:42:55 GMT -6
Sooo - is it just me, or does anyone else find it interesting that the BB/BC merger coincides with the rise of those pesky, newfangled flying machines? And, (again) is it just me, or does this 'merger also coincide with the disappearance of (actual) cavalry from the ground forces of major nations? And, (yet again - let me know when I get boring) is it just me, or did the BC's and cavalry fulfill a similar role in their respective forces: a role those pesky, newfangled flying machines could do much better, I might add? (Yes, I know this is obvious, but I just wanted see your views on it, since it's not discussed as much.) Cheers! (and thanks!) All of this is just my opinion, but here goes: The rise of the 'fast battleship' comes from two places, a desire to keep high speed AND good protection, and improvements in steam propulsion. The latter include better metallurgy (higher boiler pressure), water-tube boilers (more steam for less fuel), oil fuel (better concentrated energy) and geared turbines. From battleship times to WW2 (less than 50 years), steam pressure went from 60 or 100 psi (pounds per square inch) to as much as 600. More energy in steam means more energy can be applied to propulsion for less weight of propulsion plant, ergo higher speed or more tonnage for other things. The rise of the airplane is entirely due to the development of a new, powerful and lightweight type of propulsion: the gasoline engine. No steam-powered airplane would have flown; even dirigibles cannot afford the weight. Gasoline engines were not really useful at sea (other than in small boats) but the combination of relatively high power at relatively low weight made the Wright flyer just barely air-worthy - it was the Wright engine, not the craft, that was revolutionary. After all, if you have enough power you can make anything fly... Actual cavalry probably ceased to be useful on the battlefield some time after the Napoleonic wars - it was not very useful in combat in the Franco-Prussian War, for example - but the arm continued to be useful for scouting, guards, combat with indigenous forces and so forth. All armies expected a cavalry exploitation to lead to victory in WW1 through (I think) 1916. Supply of forage for horses was the single biggest tonnage allocation for the British Army well into WW1, and many divisions of cavalry were kept in reserve. The last 'great' cavalry charge was (I think) the British turning the Ottoman line during the Jerusalem campaign in 1917, though some sources list cavalry operations in Russia in 1942. Cavalry ceased to be useful for a couple of reasons, most of which boil down to the fact that infantry could reload and kill big horses faster than the horses could ride over the infantry. Again, just my opinion - but I think the BC was originally conceived of as an 'ultimate weapon': a ship that could accurately smash enemy ships with long-range fire while using its superior speed to hold the range open or escape as needed. I think the type was re-conceptualized as a cruiser-killer and then used for scouting for the battle line, a role the slow armored cruisers were not suited for. As with all 'ultimate weapon' development, it ceased to control its battlefield once everyone had turbine-propelled capital ships. The eclipse of the BC and cavalry and the rise of the airplane (heh) were all due to rapid improvements in science and technology from 1860 onward. It may help to put this in perspective by showing the development of two officers: 1) Sir Andrew Browne Cunningham - served on school ship HMS Britannia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(1860)) a three-decker, screw-propelled ship of the line. Served in the Boer War, commanded a destroyer in WW1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Scorpion_(1910)). Inter-war commanded the Battlecruiser Squadron with HMS Hood as flagship. In WW2, led the Mediterranean Fleet in the aircraft attack on Taranto, fought a battleship action at Cape Matapan and, in 1943, became First Sea Lord. 2) Chester Nimitz - served on several different ships including battleship Ohio, gunboat Panay, destroyer Decatur (and was court-martialed for neglect of duty). Commanded early US submarines (from re-constructed Civil War monitors, no less). Became an expert in diesel engines, studying at plants in Nuremberg, Germany. In WW1, was an officer on Maumee and helped conduct first-ever underway replenishment at sea. Inter-war he served on BB South Carolina and commanded CA Chicago and Augusta. After the attack on Pearl Harbor he was promoted to admiral and named commander of the Pacific Fleet. Under his overall command, forces fought the carrier battles of the Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal and the Marianas as well as cruiser, battleship and destroyer actions too numerous to mention. These men started out in an age when sail-and-steam were normal, commanded dreadnoughts and/or modern cruisers, saw the rise of submarines and fought major actions with aircraft, and saw gunnery go from the 'Mark I eyeball' to sophisticated radar-enhanced fire control. The pace of change must have been frightening - even overwhelming.
|
|