|
Post by dorn on Jul 11, 2019 10:35:43 GMT -6
What is your experience with light carriers in RTW2? I have not foud their meaning as soon as fleet carriers are available. They can do anything that can be one light carriers. note: in history they were used on the second theatres or anywhere where there was not expectation about heavy air opposition. And they were used ferrying aicrafts etc. This is not modelled in RTW2. Their primary and incredibly important advantage is that they show up in cruiser battles where CVs don't. Two CVLs with 68 aircraft in-battle are infinitely more useful than a CV with 100 aircraft in port. I find a mix of CVLs and CVs is best, ensuring adequate strength in all battle types. Thanks for the information. I was no aware of that even if it is quite strange. I used mainly CVs and sent old CVs on secondary dury and cannot see that enemy CVLs were present in cruiser battles. Than it seems to me that value of CAs decrease even more as at night CLs are better and at day CVLs are better.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 11, 2019 10:35:50 GMT -6
Options for a new DD (all 2000t, 34 knots, 2 AA directors): A (balanced): 34 knots, 6x5", 6x4" DP, 3x4 TT, 8.59m. B (torpedo heavy): 34 knots, 4x5", 6x4" DP, 4x4 TT, 8.606m. C (gun heavy): 8x5", 6x4" DP, 2x4 TT, 10 mines, 5.86m.
Looking at refits, I don't think anything particularly time-intensive is justified given the limitations of the older hulls. I'd rather keep them going with FC modifications and then convert them to ASW DDs when they become fully obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 11, 2019 10:57:04 GMT -6
I would go for option A, though if you have 5" DP guns I might suggest dropping the 4" battery.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 11, 2019 11:16:58 GMT -6
No 5" DP, no twin DP, and main battery DP on destroyers. I also explored an option with 1x2 5" and an increased number of 4", but deck space doesn't support anything that looked worth the reduced main battery.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Jul 11, 2019 11:33:21 GMT -6
Options for a new DD (all 2000t, 34 knots, 2 AA directors): A (balanced): 34 knots, 6x5", 6x4" DP, 3x4 TT, 8.59m. B (torpedo heavy): 34 knots, 4x5", 6x4" DP, 4x4 TT, 8.606m. C (gun heavy): 8x5", 6x4" DP, 2x4 TT, 10 mines, 5.86m. Looking at refits, I don't think anything particularly time-intensive is justified given the limitations of the older hulls. I'd rather keep them going with FC modifications and then convert them to ASW DDs when they become fully obsolete. A refit Espingole class would be nearly on par with option A except the AA (and one less 5'' gun).
Given the loss rate of DDs to subs, I would keep all 32+ knot DDs in service, they have 5'' guns and are imho not worth the maintenance for ASW duty due to their expensive engines and size.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 11, 2019 11:48:48 GMT -6
I would go with variant A. Later changing secondary battery for torpedo reloads and DP main battery. I agree with yemo, refit give you for small money destroyers with almost capabilities of new ones.
|
|
|
Post by wevets on Jul 12, 2019 6:44:25 GMT -6
On a logistical note, I'll be away on vacation for the next two weeks, and mostly unreachable. I'm wondering if Serenissima and connor085 want to go ahead and take the 1935-1939 and 1940-1944 slots respectively, and maybe when I get back from vacation I can finish up with the 1945-1949 slot? Cheers, everyone. Best wishes in major fleet actions!
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 15, 2019 21:04:01 GMT -6
Further thoughts regarding build priority: - A pair of CAs would be useful for hunting CAs fielded by Germany, Japan, and AH, but as France can blockade them at their present fleet levels this capability is not crucial in a war against any of those powers. GB has a sizable CL fleet, but none exceed any of France's CLs in power and none can match the speed of the Emile Bertins. A CA would thus again be useful but not necessary. - Great Britain's battleline is formidable but largely slow and/or obsolete, with 10 ships carrying 14" or smaller guns and no modern battleship exceeding 25 knots. The primary threat is its fleet of modern battlecruisers: nine ships ranging in firepower from 10x15" to 9x16" and in speed from 27-30 knots, augmented by four other 26-knot BBs and BCs. These ships alone could potentially outfight the French battle line, and the French fleet cannot count on choosing engagements against them. I thus see a fast battleship as quite marginally valuable--while matching the entire GB battle line is plainly out of reach, a small number of fast battleships would reduce the risk of being overwhelmed by their fast wing. - While France already holds decisive superiority in carriers, multiple successful carrier actions would likely be necessary to break the GB blockade.
Battleship design thoughts: the considerable superiority in range of the 17" over the 16" gun (39ky vs 33ky at +1) favors a long engagement range to leverage improved accuracy at range. Unfortunately the Normandie class's immunity zone against 16" guns is limited to a narrow band around 21ky, and 17-22ky against 15" guns. Expecting the existing immunity zone of the Normandies to vanish with improvements in AP technology, I think it better to design our future battlefleet around long-range gunnery, since if neither side enjoys immunity it is better to fight in the range of greatest relative accuracy.
Against 16"/+1 fire, the upper edge of the immunity zone is as follows: 5.5": 25ky 6": 26ky 6.5": 29ky 7": maximum range (4.2% margin at 30+ky) 7.5": maximum range (12% margin at 30+ky) Leading options are thus: - Acknowledging the rarity of visibility beyond 25ky in the Northern Atlantic (and increased likelihood that French airpower would be decisive in any battle in such perfect visibility) , settle for 5.5" or 6" armor to ensure immunity out to common visibility. - Increase armor to 7" to provide margin against AP advances and unusually clear weather. - Increase armor to 7.5" and enjoy immunity to deck penetrations for the foreseeable future.
The lower edge of immunity starts at 22ky at 13" and decreases by 1ky per 0.5" of belt until 17ky at 15.5", at which point returns are diminishing. I favor no more than 14", and a preference for avoiding combat when visibility is less than 20ky.
Battleship designs: all except E are 2x4 17" guns (AB). - A: A conservative increment over the Normandies, with immunity from 21-25ky against 16"/+1 guns. 46.5kt, 13.5" belt, 5.5" deck, 15.5"/6.5" turrets, 20x4" DP. 166,136. - B: The same as A except 1 knot slower: 44.5kt, 161,814. - C: A maximimally-protected design, with immunity at 20+ky against 16"/+1 guns. 55.5kt, 28 knots, 14" belt, 7" deck, 16"/7.5" turrets, 20x4" DP. 202,491. - D: The same as B except 27 knots: 52kt, 187,971. - E: The most bang for the buck, maximizing long-range killing power: 27 knots, 3x4 17"/+1 gun, 58kt, 24x4" DP. 209,743.
I would prefer a 28-knot battleship so that they can keep up with the fleet even if they do not make design speed, although it does not seem worthwhile comparing C and D. Nor does the additional armor of the C and D options seem worthwhile, as it is less likely to be relevant than additional guns. Lastly, the 12-gun option is only a 16% increase in armament for the cost relative to B. I thus lean toward A: the world's best battleship at a relatively affordable price.
The final option would be a carrier; a 100-plane CV would be about half the price of the A-design battleship and finish six months faster. However, I think France is already decisively superior in any battle with weather supporting air operations, but vulnerable to the GB battlecruisers if the weather does not cooperate.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 16, 2019 0:35:11 GMT -6
Normandie immunity zone against 16" Q1 guns at 1/1930 was: citadel: 17400 - 22500 yards
turrets: 16100 - 26800 yards
I do not expect her immunity zone change a lot after 2.5 years. Real (practical) immunity zone would be higher and especially citadel as ship is usually angled increasing her armour effectivity quite a lot. If it is really issue later 1" of deck armour could be added at minimal costs about 6-7 M.
Relating to new fast battleship.
As you have mentioned, there is no need against the 3rd rank power, so mainly UK is concerned. I would be more worried with 2x4 AB gun arrangement than a little worse or better armour. The main threat for battleship is location of hit, history shows it quite clear and RTW simulated this really in excellent way. If you are outnumbered which is certain against UK, you need to be prepare to withdraw if something is going bad. With 2x4 forward guns it is difficult as enemy fire at you without you ability firing back making their fire more accurate. And one lucky hit (not so lucky as more than 20 % of hits are turret hits) can easily disable both turrets. To disable turrets there is no need to have penetration potential. Even HE shells can disable turrets. So I would use aft turret even if it costs a little more.
Relating to deck armour and armour itself. The main question is what is threat and how your ships will be used. I expect you will use mainly airpower so your battleline does not need to be so heavy, much more capable to hold line and ability to cover damaged ship which need to disengage. For that purpose more smaller hulls are better.
Relating to firing distance. Even in excellent weather, hits over 25000 are very rare and could be easily avoided. Even at visibility of 30000 yards it take quite a time to identified enemy ships, open fire and start to straddle. At that time with full speed ship can easily be in 25000 yards range even less (it is about 2-3 minutes if both fleets are closing to each other at effective speed of 28 knots). So protecting deck against gunfire over 25000 yards seems to me too expensive and useless.
The second point is belt armour vs. turret face armour. If you use inclined belt (I expect so) that real effectivness of 13.5" belt is 14.85". So with just angle 20° the belt has better effectivness than turrets (15.8" vs. 15.5"). I would make difference between belt and turret face armour a little higher.
Conclusion:
A agree with your that A variant is best. I have 2 suggestions: a) adding 0.5" of turret face armour b) changing 2x4 AB to 322 ABY or 323 ABY to decrease high risk of loosing all firepower by "lucky" hit
Another thing to consider is that 17" guns has about 1" more penetration over 16" guns in range 17k yards in 1930. So to took really advantage of 17" guns it is better to go on shorter range of your immunity zone. The advantage in deck armour penetration is smaller becasue the difference in penetration in lower range is more than 1000 yards but on upper range with deck armour is quite less than 1000 yards. To use fully higher caliber guns your main advantage is in vertical penetration.
Another point is bombs but if you have advantage in air power I cannot see it as an issue as each battleship can handle some bombs. (I used battlecruisers from start of 20s later upgraded from 3.5" deck armour to 4.5" deck armour) easily even in late 40s. As they were mainly AI controlled using longer range still having no issue.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 16, 2019 10:14:06 GMT -6
BB1932A1: 13" inclined belt, 5.5" deck, 16"/6.5" turrets, 22x4" DP, 164,228. Immunity from 21-25ky against 16"/+1 (17-28ky turrets) BB1932E1: Same armor, 424 ABL, 200,935. Minimizes two-turret-out hits by reducing the size of the middle turret. BB1932F: Same armor, 322 ABY, 169,247. Has the disadvantage that it needs all three turrets operational and within arc to avoid accuracy penalties, and three turrets are more likely to jam than two. BB1932G: Same armor, 333 AXY, 197,646. Too expensive for the firepower. BB1932H: Same armor, 44 AY, 174,367.
Regarding the importance of aft fire: the bulk of the British battlefleet is limited to 22 knots, against which our 27+ knot battleships can likely dictate range while holding a broadside. If the British attempt an end-on charge, an attack from our considerably superior destroyer fleet should dissuade them. Meanwhile, against the battlecruisers we cannot disengage without first inflicting nontrivial damage; regardless of odds, I would rather bring all guns to bear and hope than engage in a prolonged chase action pitting my two guns against their six. (And again, our destroyers should be able to discourage direct pursuit in a pinch). I thus prefer to maximize broadside fire, and maximizing forward fire to be able to best exploit mismatches is a nice, if noncritical, bonus.
Regarding optimal engagement ranges: in my experience, accuracy is a more reliable advantage than armor; even the most heavily-armored ships can still suffer heavily from BE penetrations, turret jams from non-penetrations, and fluke penetrations at short-mid range. I agree that decisive engagements at 25-30ky are unlikely--this is why I threw out the 7" deck options. Nonetheless, particularly if outnumbered, I would rather trust to the 17" gun's accuracy at 20-25ky than trust to penetration advantages within 20ky. This is reinforced by the fact that my losses would be less replaceable; long-range engagements give better hope of pulling out a crippled ship. True, the 17" gun doesn't have a penetration advantage at that range--but to me that is secondary to the accuracy advantage. (I also expect, based on the British battlecruisers' displacement vs. capabilities, that they have relatively thin deck armor too.)
I thus think the only solid argument against 44AB is the possibility of a two-turrets-out hit. However, while I agree that disabling turrets without penetration is relatively common, I haven't seen a non-penetrating hit do so and I strongly prefer to engage in my turrets' immunity zone. And comparing 44AB and 322 ABY, the former is cheaper, has 14% better firepower with all turrets operational, and only 20% less firepower with one turret out (which is more likely with the latter's three turrets than the former's two).
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 17, 2019 0:08:03 GMT -6
Quite interesting reading. You fight almost whole globe? If I can see right, you fight UK, Italy, Germany, Japan?
Seems that carriers and light forces are the main threat to foreign navies and heavy units hold the line quite well. But expected fight over 20000 yards is seldom and with minimal result. The main fighting is up to 20000 yards. And I can see that combination of fast light cruisers with destroyers can easily take advantage over heavy cruisers at worst visibility and has no issue to withdraw in case of ideal visibility.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 24, 2019 17:39:24 GMT -6
It looks like wevets isn't available-- Serenissima, would you be interested in taking the next slot?
|
|
|
Post by wevets on Jul 29, 2019 22:49:02 GMT -6
No Serenissima? I'm back in town, so if they don't show up in a couple days, I'll get the tenure started.
|
|
|
Post by Serenissima on Aug 10, 2019 18:14:42 GMT -6
If you haven't started already, I'm happy to do it. The forum had automatically logged me out and I didn't notice, so I didn't get the notification I was expecting. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by wevets on Aug 18, 2019 7:01:24 GMT -6
I've started, but I've been sidelined by a project (took a bunch of photos for a friend's wedding, and since I don't do that a lot, photoshopping everything to make it look good takes forever) - if you're ready to go, feel free to take it on
|
|