|
Post by yemo on Jul 4, 2019 12:59:55 GMT -6
I consider the 1923 Chasseloup Laubat refit to be a mistake. A bit more money would have kept them more competitive in a gun fight. Instead of removing 2 casemate guns in exchange for a floatplane and some mines, I should have removed all 4 casemate guns, added a floatplane but then readded 2-3 6'' centerline guns. These cruisers are completely absolete, I would not invest too much, especially with today budget.
I will probably just refit fire control and add 1 aircraft with catapult, removing submerged torpedo tubes for 1.5M.
Another possibility is for 2.6M: - 1 aicraft, 1 catapult, no hangar - removed casemates guns - install singl B and X turret - refit FC - adding 2 double torpedo mounts
Just checked and adding B and X singles does not work because of the 3'' armor, my bad. Unfortunately it is also set to 21'' torpedoes, so those will be quite heavy.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 4, 2019 13:06:49 GMT -6
Thanks for the opinion.
Budget is the issue as I have budget for 21 months of construction but the first battleship will be commisisoned in 23 months. With some delays I think it is just OK. But the budget for carrier is for any future increase of budget so carrier need to be cheap as possible.
For that case I will go for relatively small carrier and as nobody else has carrier and CAP should handle small amount of bombers.
Variant A - 22300 tons, 62M, 30 knots, 60 aicrafts, 2" belt, 2" deck armoured box, 4" CT, 1" turret armour
Variant B - 22300 tons, 59M, 30 knots, 72 aicrafts, unarmoured
Variant C - 19800 tons, 54M, 30 knots, 60 aicrafts, unarmoured
Variant D - 28000 tons, 78M, 30 knots, 80 aicrafts, 3.5" belt, 2.5" deck armoured box, 3.5" CT
Variant D is probably outside budget possibility.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 4, 2019 13:10:04 GMT -6
These cruisers are completely absolete, I would not invest too much, especially with today budget.
I will probably just refit fire control and add 1 aircraft with catapult, removing submerged torpedo tubes for 1.5M.
Another possibility is for 2.6M: - 1 aicraft, 1 catapult, no hangar - removed casemates guns - install singl B and X turret - refit FC - adding 2 double torpedo mounts
Personally, I don't think that dropping the casemated guns and reducing the turret armor to 2" so that you can put a couple guns on the centerline is all that worthwhile for Chasseloup Laubat. You'd be giving up a decent amount of armor protection - the turrets are actually somewhat resistant to 6" gunfire at longer engagement ranges with 3" armor, and the armored casemates act something like a limited armor belt - without adding anything to the broadside, and Chasseloup Laubat probably isn't fast enough to really get that much value out of an improved chase armament. In this case armour remain same, 3". Ships will be slightly overweight but it is not issue. Replacing 6" casemates to superimposed forward and aft turrets allows torpedo tubes. Nothing more. But it is true, it is probably not worth the costs.
But these ships would need to work another 4 years probably as replacement of them will not start before 2.5 year, so 1.5 year later than I expected.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 4, 2019 13:34:37 GMT -6
Personally, I don't think that dropping the casemated guns and reducing the turret armor to 2" so that you can put a couple guns on the centerline is all that worthwhile for Chasseloup Laubat. You'd be giving up a decent amount of armor protection - the turrets are actually somewhat resistant to 6" gunfire at longer engagement ranges with 3" armor, and the armored casemates act something like a limited armor belt - without adding anything to the broadside, and Chasseloup Laubat probably isn't fast enough to really get that much value out of an improved chase armament. In this case armour remain same, 3". Ships will be slightly overweight but it is not issue. Replacing 6" casemates to superimposed forward and aft turrets allows torpedo tubes. Nothing more. But it is true, it is probably not worth the costs. If you want to replace the casemated guns with centerline superfiring guns, you cannot keep the 3" turret face armor; the game will not allow new 6" guns to be added unless they're in shielded single mounts, which means you'd need to reduce the main battery armor to 2" or less.
As to the carriers, I would probably prefer D to A and A to the unarmored carriers. If you want to go for a relatively cheap unarmored carrier, I'd consider using C as a starting point, reducing the torpedo protection to 2, and maybe reducing the speed to 29 knots, then either add aircraft to try to offset its vulnerability with increased strike and CAP capability or shrink the carrier down to cut costs further.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 4, 2019 14:10:46 GMT -6
In this case armour remain same, 3". Ships will be slightly overweight but it is not issue. Replacing 6" casemates to superimposed forward and aft turrets allows torpedo tubes. Nothing more. But it is true, it is probably not worth the costs. If you want to replace the casemated guns with centerline superfiring guns, you cannot keep the 3" turret face armor; the game will not allow new 6" guns to be added unless they're in shielded single mounts, which means you'd need to reduce the main battery armor to 2" or less.
As to the carriers, I would probably prefer D to A and A to the unarmored carriers. If you want to go for a relatively cheap unarmored carrier, I'd consider using C as a starting point, reducing the torpedo protection to 2, and maybe reducing the speed to 29 knots, then either add aircraft to try to offset its vulnerability with increased strike and CAP capability or shrink the carrier down to cut costs further.
You are right relating 6" guns, so it is clear, refit will be minimal.
Relating to carriers, replacing TDS lvl 4 to TDS lvl 2 saves for Variant C only 2M, it is not too much. And going down to 29 knots seems shortsighted as I expect that future carrier fleet should have speed of at least 30 knots. I would rather have some armour but it costs qutie a lot of money.
As UK I used both unarmoured, lightly armoured (1-2" belt and deck) and heavily armoured (2" belt, hangar, 3" deck, 4" flight deck) and it seems that unarmoured is the best as it takes late 40s to enemy have enough airpower to get through CAP and made some damage through bombing. I expect that in midle 40s she will be 2nd class carrier.
I would think about funds, if they are available I will choose Variant A, otherwise Variant C.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 4, 2019 15:03:22 GMT -6
If you want to replace the casemated guns with centerline superfiring guns, you cannot keep the 3" turret face armor; the game will not allow new 6" guns to be added unless they're in shielded single mounts, which means you'd need to reduce the main battery armor to 2" or less.
As to the carriers, I would probably prefer D to A and A to the unarmored carriers. If you want to go for a relatively cheap unarmored carrier, I'd consider using C as a starting point, reducing the torpedo protection to 2, and maybe reducing the speed to 29 knots, then either add aircraft to try to offset its vulnerability with increased strike and CAP capability or shrink the carrier down to cut costs further.
Relating to carriers, replacing TDS lvl 4 to TDS lvl 2 saves for Variant C only 2M, it is not too much. And going down to 29 knots seems shortsighted as I expect that future carrier fleet should have speed of at least 30 knots. I would rather have some armour but it costs qutie a lot of money. It is of course your decision, but in my opinion 29 knots would be sufficient for a second-class fleet carrier, even if it's not ideal for operating with future 30-knot or faster fleet carriers, and I feel that it's a bit strange to invest so heavily in torpedo defense when the ship has no other passive protection systems. Dropping to TD2 would allow seven or eight more aircraft; dropping to TD2 and 29 knots would allow ten or twelve more aircraft or cutting ~5M from the construction costs. If CAP is good enough to stop bombing attacks, it ought to be good enough to stop aerial torpedo attacks.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 4, 2019 16:47:08 GMT -6
If CAP is good enough to stop bombing attacks, it ought to be good enough to stop aerial torpedo attacks. I think the biggest threat to carriers, given the AI's generally ineffective use of air assets, is running into a destroyer at night. Also, TDS4 is far cheaper than the 5.5-6" of armor necessary to provide forward-looking protection from bombs--passive protection from some aerial attacks is better than not having it, even if you only cover one type.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 4, 2019 20:25:01 GMT -6
I think the biggest threat to carriers, given the AI's generally ineffective use of air assets, is running into a destroyer at night. Also, TDS4 is far cheaper than the 5.5-6" of armor necessary to provide forward-looking protection from bombs--passive protection from some aerial attacks is better than not having it, even if you only cover one type. TP2 is still some degree of passive protection from aerial, destroyer, and submarine torpedo attacks, and it is in my opinion generally adequate - especially for fast or second-class ships - while being a lot less of a tonnage investment than TP3 or TP4.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 4, 2019 23:12:56 GMT -6
If CAP is good enough to stop bombing attacks, it ought to be good enough to stop aerial torpedo attacks. I think the biggest threat to carriers, given the AI's generally ineffective use of air assets, is running into a destroyer at night. Also, TDS4 is far cheaper than the 5.5-6" of armor necessary to provide forward-looking protection from bombs--passive protection from some aerial attacks is better than not having it, even if you only cover one type. For protection against destroyers, TDS lvl 2 is sufficient as it is uprobable to have too much hits from destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 4, 2019 23:14:42 GMT -6
I think the biggest threat to carriers, given the AI's generally ineffective use of air assets, is running into a destroyer at night. Also, TDS4 is far cheaper than the 5.5-6" of armor necessary to provide forward-looking protection from bombs--passive protection from some aerial attacks is better than not having it, even if you only cover one type. TP2 is still some degree of passive protection from aerial, destroyer, and submarine torpedo attacks, and it is in my opinion generally adequate - especially for fast or second-class ships - while being a lot less of a tonnage investment than TP3 or TP4. You are right, I will shrink carrier to 17600 tons, 29 knots, TDS lvl 2, 47.5M. With 60 aicrafts she will be still still one of largest carrier in 30s.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 5, 2019 0:42:23 GMT -6
There is request for new general purpose cruiser. As technology advanced it allows on same displacement as Jeanne d'Arc have cruiser with 1 knot speed higher.
So minimal requested: - speed 31 knots - armament 6x6" guns - 1 aicraft - 2x3 torpedo tubes
No foreign design cruiser has more than 6x6" guns and speed faster than 31 knots.
Questions to that design: 1. What threat these cruisers will face? a) light cruisers b) airplanes c) heavy cruisers
2. How large should be? a) similar size as Jeanne d'Arc - 6000 tons, 24.3M, 31 knots, same armour scheme as JdA, same armament (main guns, secondaries), 6xTT, 2xAA directors, 4xLAA, 8xMAA, 1 aicraft, 1 catapult - 153 reserved tonnage free
b) larger adding another double 6" turret - 6400 tons, 25.9M, 31 knots, same armour scheme as JdA, 8x6", 6x4" DP, 6xTT, 2xAA, 4xLAA, 8xMAA, 1 aicraft, 1 catapult - 124 reserved tonnage free
c) larger increasing protection to cover whole ship (no magazine armour box) and one more double turret - 7200 tons, 29.2M, 31 knots, same protection as JdA but in whole lenght (no magazin box protection), 6xTT, 2xAA directors, 6xLAA, 8xMAA, 1 aicraft, 1 catapult - 101 reserved tonnage free
d) better armour protection, more torpedo tubes - 7200 tons, 29.2M, 31 knots, 3" belt, 1" deck, 2" CT, 4.5" turret armour, 2" turret tops, 12xTT, 2xAA directors, 5xLAA, 8xMAA, 1 aicraft, 1 catapult - 107 reserved tonnage free e) other design???
note: all cruisers has equipment for colonial service
Foreign heavy cruisers USA - 3xRochester class, only 28 knots, 6x10", 14x6" guns, probably armoured box - 1xHuntington class, 30 knots, 12x10" guns, probably armoured box A-H - 1xSankt George, 29 knots, 10x10", 14x6" guns
Italy - 15200 tons cruiser under construction Germany - 12200 tons cruiser under construction
Except USA, all heavy cruisers could be counter by our battlecruisers and airpower. In case of USA 31 knot cruiser can give us speed advantage without need to invest heavily into this type of cruisers. Strategy should be to shadow such cruiser and attack him with superior numbers of light cruisers and destroyers in night.
Light cruisers - most modern foreign designs Pandora class (UK) - 31 knots, 5x6" guns (no B turret), minimal armour Cleopatra class (UK) - 31 knots, 5x6" guns (has B turret), medium armour (2" belt) Alberto da Guissano class (ITA) - 31 knots, 6x4", 2.5" belt armour Chicago class (USA) - 30 knots, 8x6" (5x6" broadside, without B turret), 3" belt Galveston class (USA) - 30 knots, 6x6" (AXY), 2.5" belt
Attachments:Game9_192901.7z (274.65 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 5, 2019 0:59:58 GMT -6
Napoleon class refit
To use them for colonies defend I am thinking of 2 possible refits:
1. minimal - just improved FC and adding some AA guns for 6M
2. mediocrate - adding deck armour, FC, some AA guns for 11M
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Jul 5, 2019 6:54:13 GMT -6
2. How large should be? a) similar size as Jeanne d'Arc - 6000 tons, 24.3M, 31 knots, same armour scheme as JdA, same armament (main guns, secondaries), 6xTT, 2xAA directors, 4xLAA, 8xMAA, 1 aicraft, 1 catapult - 153 reserved tonnage free
b) larger adding another double 6" turret - 6400 tons, 25.9M, 31 knots, same armour scheme as JdA, 8x6", 6x4" DP, 6xTT, 2xAA, 4xLAA, 8xMAA, 1 aicraft, 1 catapult - 124 reserved tonnage free
c) larger increasing protection to cover whole ship (no magazine armour box) and one more double turret - 7200 tons, 29.2M, 31 knots, same protection as JdA but in whole lenght (no magazin box protection), 6xTT, 2xAA directors, 6xLAA, 8xMAA, 1 aicraft, 1 catapult - 101 reserved tonnage free
d) better armour protection, more torpedo tubes - 7200 tons, 29.2M, 31 knots, 3" belt, 1" deck, 2" CT, 4.5" turret armour, 2" turret tops, 12xTT, 2xAA directors, 5xLAA, 8xMAA, 1 aicraft, 1 catapult - 107 reserved tonnage free e) other design???
note: all cruisers has equipment for colonial service
I'd would recommend option c), but change the armor layout to sloped deck behind belt. Flat deck / AON just doesn't make much sense on a CL...
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 5, 2019 12:41:38 GMT -6
Napoleon class refit
To use them for colonies defend I am thinking of 2 possible refits:
1. minimal - just improved FC and adding some AA guns for 6M
2. mediocrate - adding deck armour, FC, some AA guns for 11M
Regardless of which you do, I'd suggest removing a fire control position during the refit to cut costs - Napoleon doesn't really need three of them, and removing one will save about three quarters of a million on the overall cost of the refit. I might also consider replacing the 6" secondary battery with a 4" DP battery and removing the 3" tertiary battery rather than keeping the 6" secondary battery and replacing the 3" tertiary battery with 4" DP battery.
As to which refit to do, I would say to go for the minimal refit - you're planning to use the ships in a secondary role where they're unlikely to see much action against comparable opponents, so it seems to me unnecessary to spend more than the minimum required to keep them fit for service.
Regarding the light cruisers, I lean towards option (c).
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 5, 2019 14:23:16 GMT -6
If CAP is good enough to stop bombing attacks, it ought to be good enough to stop aerial torpedo attacks. I think the biggest threat to carriers, given the AI's generally ineffective use of air assets, is running into a destroyer at night. Also, TDS4 is far cheaper than the 5.5-6" of armor necessary to provide forward-looking protection from bombs--passive protection from some aerial attacks is better than not having it, even if you only cover one type. I will built new carrier probably in 2-3 months, this time no budget limitations, so 28000 tons.
What ship would you prefer, unarmored, slightly armoured or full armoured carrier? Would you prefer different speed or TDS protection?
All variants has: 8x5", 8x4" DP, 2 AA directors, 14 LAA, 18 MAA and TDS lvl 4, speed 30 knots
Variant A - 71M, unarmoured, 100 aicrafts Variant B - 75M, 3.5" belt, 1" deck, 4" CT, 82 aicrafts Variant C - 78M, 3.5" belt, 2.5" deck, 4" CT, 72 aicrafts Variant D - 81M, 1" belt, 1" deck, 4" CT, 3" FD, 1" HS, 60 aicrafts Variant E - 85M, 2" belt, 2" deck, 4" CT, 3.5" FD, 1.5" HS, 44 aicrafts
|
|