|
Post by akosjaccik on Nov 11, 2019 14:40:20 GMT -6
I do have to say it's not everyday that I see 6"-gun cruisers effectively mission killing capital ships, let alone surviving to tell the tale. Granted, the Yukon was present to act as punching bag, but still, that was a sight to behold! I started thinking about, reading the chapter, if I'd rather pick to be in the machinery spaces, behind roughly as much armor as one can get, but with crippling uncertainty and questionable chances of survival if things go very, very wrong; or manning the machine gun on a far less claustrophobic spot, however knowing full well that the cruiser is sailing straight at a goddamn battleship, I'm half deaf from the muzzle blasts and so much as stray shell fragment can end me. Once again, "just a silly game", but makes me a bit grateful that I am living in a location where I have the choice of not being anywhere near such places. With that said, your cruisers with a 'C' are seem to be marked by destiny. Calgary, Camrose...
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 12, 2019 15:54:44 GMT -6
I do have to say it's not everyday that I see 6"-gun cruisers effectively mission killing capital ships, let alone surviving to tell the tale. Granted, the Yukon was present to act as punching bag, but still, that was a sight to behold! I started thinking about, reading the chapter, if I'd rather pick to be in the machinery spaces, behind roughly as much armor as one can get, but with crippling uncertainty and questionable chances of survival if things go very, very wrong; or manning the machine gun on a far less claustrophobic spot, however knowing full well that the cruiser is sailing straight at a goddamn battleship, I'm half deaf from the muzzle blasts and so much as stray shell fragment can end me. Once again, "just a silly game", but makes me a bit grateful that I am living in a location where I have the choice of not being anywhere near such places. With that said, your cruisers with a 'C' are seem to be marked by destiny. Calgary, Camrose... Glad that had been enjoyable for you. Your thought did made me wonder what if I have a small blurb about the machinery crew's perspective, it is then I realized Burlington's machinery had a rather unfortunate encounter with a 15" shell....Even with FtD's some what simple graphics its pretty easy to see the mess the ships were in. (I had to "film" most scene in this battle in separate sections because the cruiser actors would all too often be shot to a unrecognizable mess after 2-3 takes xD) I am debating whether the its a "C" problem, or the fact that these ships were all named after cities from Alberta.....(Now that you brought it up, when the battlecruiser Athabaskan was sunk, her escort cruiser Chestermere were able to torpedo and sink one of the RN BCs. Chestermere is again, coincidentally an Albertan city and starts with a "C" xD) Well now I certainly look forward to the upcoming Cree.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 19, 2019 5:04:08 GMT -6
Cree Class Battlecruiser - 1925 Ship In Class: Cree
The planned second Huron Class ship, the Cree was almost scrapped due to the shifting focus of wartime production. By 1922, Canada had secured most of the Caribbean, and no one expected the battlecruiser to be finished before the war ends. Thus while materials were prepared for a second Huron Class, the construction never started. However with the loss of Both Haida and Athabaskan, the need for another battlecruiser is clear. Even if it wont be done during the war, at least it is the first step towards replenishing the much diminished Canadian Battlecruiser Squadron. The plan for the Huron class was revisited, and changes made to accommodate significantly improved turret armor and new 15inch/40 guns. While it was not expected to fight in the war, it incorporated as much wartime lesson into its design as possible. However, the war dragged on for three more years, and Cree found itself pressed into service by August 1925 to reinforce the Canadian fleet in their joint blockade against the British Home Islands. Overview
The Cree was a modified Huron-Class, and therefore shares much similarities with her half-sister. She is slightly longer and wider, but displaces over 2000 tons compared to the Huron. Most of the additional weight went towards armor, while the weight dedicated to armament and machinery was actually slightly less than the Huron Class. This pushed her freeboard down by about 0.7meter, but she remains a fairly good sea boat despite her casemates being somewhat less workable in heavy weathers. Cree's superstructure received some overhaul compared to the Huron class. Most notably the "Totem Pole" mast got even bigger to accommodate additional plotting rooms, spotting platforms, and advanced French Fire-Control Director equipment. Her aft mast also received rework to add a crane and necessary facilities to operate a single scout floatplane to assist her in gunnery spotting and scouting missions. Armament
The admiralty have realized that while the 14" guns currently being employed by the navy are adequate weapons, they are being outclassed by heavier foreign guns. The Royal Navy operated 3 tiger class equipped with 15" guns, and Canadian battlecruiser struggled against similar 14" equipped RN battlecruisers. While "more shells" may be more effective against the poorly protected RN battlecruiser from a decade ago, they are falling slightly short by 1922. Thus, it is decided the Cree will be modified to carry the new 15in/40 gun developed in 1921. Despite the larger shell weight, the 15" gun did not offer a very significant improvement for penetration at mid range, due to her mediocre barrel length. But the heavy shell used by the Canadians give her good penetration at very short/longer ranges. Further, the gun does have an additional 3000 yards of range, though gunnery at such extreme range are not likely to be relevant in most engagements.
While some questioned the benefit of this upgrade at he cost of two 14" barrels, at least Huron's triple 14" is rather easily converted to house dual 15".The superimposed dual 14" barbette however requires some expansion that pushed them further back in the ship. In the end however, cutting two barrels saved enough weight that the heavily armored 15" turret can be installed without much issue. Cree's 15" guns roar in a full broadside
Secondary/AA
Cree maintains largely the same secondary armament as the Huron, with 12 6"/50 guns in casemates. At the time of her design, the issues with the 4" DP guns had not been resolved, as a result, none where installed. At time of her construction, no Canadian warship had came under aerial attack, so this was thought to be a small sacrifice to make. Cree does maintain double the amount of AA machine guns compared to the Huron, with 12 dual Vickers HMG scattered around her fore/aft mast. Armor
While the switch to 15" seems to be Cree's most impressive feature, it is more experimental than pure improvement. Cree's armor scheme however, show significant improvement from prior designs. To date, Canadian battlecruisers had suffered significantly from turret penetration destroying the turret, and causing potentially ship-sinking flash fires. With the shock of Haida and Athabaskan's loss fresh on their mind, Cree's turret are extremely heavily protected as a result. With 14" of armor protected her turret front, Cree’s turret can resist 15" gun from beyond 15000 yards, and 14” guns from around 12500 yards. Her 5" turret top can likewise resist 15" guns out till 25000 yards. This makes her turret essentially immune to enemy fire at the mid-long range engagement she is designed for. But, given the sensitivity of the turret mechanism, it is not impossible to think a lucky hit can jam or damage the turret nonetheless. This is where the greater reliability of dual turret are thought to prevail. The other improvement for the Cree is the armored deck. This is where most of the increased displacement went. An inch was added over her armored citadel, together with a splinter deck to giving her better protective efficiency, Cree is immune to 14" guns(By then still the most common guns for the RN) from 18000 yards out, and her deck can resist 15" until 23000 yards. There is no additional weight to strengthen her 12" belt, but the aforementioned splinter deck and other design improvement meant her armor is still slightly more effective than the Huron. Engine
To accommodate the larger superimposed 15" turret and weight of the armored deck, Cree's machinery space were slightly reduced by reducing the size of her boilers. However, the smaller boilers utilized new Water wall furnace to deliver 102,465 hp compared to 98,250 hp of the Huron. The end result is that the Cree can still make the Huron class design speed of 28 knots, enough to match any Royal Navy Battlecruisers. Cree on her trial cruise in August, 1925.
Only a single Cree class was ordered, no one expected her to serve in the war. She was more an experiment to incorporate newer guns and improving faults discovered with earlier battlecruisers. However, with her entering service in August, 1925, the Navy had high hopes for her to turn the tide against the RN battlecruiser forces. The more sober mind in the navy however, understood that while the Cree is slightly superior to every RN battlecruiser in service, she can only rely on her Half-Sister Huron against 7 modern RN battlecruisers. Without assistance from the Marine Nationale, it is unlikely that Cree alone will bring significant change to the balance of power.
After a busy/lazy week I am finally back to update. The next few update will cover the Lynx class light carrier and Sept-Iles class destroyer before going ahead with the campaign again. I probably will have to do some learning with early carriers since that's a category of ship that I am not too familiar with, but the learning process is what makes it fun .
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Nov 19, 2019 12:25:30 GMT -6
Yup, the long-overdue Cree. Looking good, I have to say, sporting very nice proportions and a classy hull shape. Then again, I am the man who absolutely does not get what people obsess over the Hood, so perhaps my taste isn't up to the gold standard. In that regard of course the Huron was also rather sexy; still, after but comparing the two, the somewhat lenghtened hull plus the new atlantic-ish bow shape did it's magic. It's very nifty how you incorporated the boat / a/c crane into the aft mast, basically utilizing it as another support for the aft mast's platforms, enabling a larger area for them (or the other way around, using the support to install the crane ). Also, I reckon the "short" 15"s are Q-1 in game-terms? Even so, by eyeballing the diagram it seems so that they do provide ~1000 yards of play for the same penetration, of ~1 inches of advantage in penetration capability at the same distance over the standard 14" L/42. (edit: The range increase also means that the "medium/long range" penalties get pushed further outside, although once again eyeballing the difference [say, perhaps 6-800 yds?], it isn't something that is a consciously used advantage, realistically speaking.) It is a good question what should be the more sensible option to pick, shell weight or fire density, but this increase has a potential to come in clutch against angled targets and in overall unfavourable conditions; plus you do have a platform with the Cree that can become a basis for future upgrades, especiall should a treaty ban further constructions.
Perhaps I should've left just a tad bit more free tonnage on the ship, should anything come up that requires that.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 19, 2019 13:03:05 GMT -6
While the crane was installed with the idea of "operating seaplane", the underlying motivation was definitely "Moar platforms for pagoda!" The 15" are actually Q0, I was kinda hoping for a slightly larger improve in penetration outside of short range, which is why I explained it away as being slightly under performing. Then again, It might also be due to my relatively backward AP tech at the moment (A consistent theme in my campaign orz).I find my current 14" guns have trouble inflicting satisfying damage after penetration(for that matter, my 12" guns sunk more RN capital than my 14"), so the 15" is a bit of an experiment in that regard as well. I must admit the added range and its potential implication with regard to penetration falloff and accuracy being a nice boon. With regards to tonnage, I've left more initially, which sadly gotten taken up by the director upgrades it seems. I definitely should've saved some weight for adding DP guns, but I think if I do get around to a refit I will probably strip away the casemates for turreted secondaries to free up weight. (Which is conveniently explained given her reduced freeboard not working well with casemates )
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 19, 2019 16:06:06 GMT -6
While some questioned the benefit of this upgrade at he cost of two 14" barrels I personally feel that the "lighter guns can compensate for lower expected damage per hit with higher expected hits per time period" argument doesn't work very well with heavy guns. The practical difference in rate of fire per gun becomes pretty marginal (especially at longer engagement ranges, realistically, though I don't know to what extent the game models the impact of engagement range on actual rate of fire) so there's not much difference in the number of salvos per time period, and the absolute difference in the number of guns you're putting into a single salvo isn't likely to be very large when looking at two similarly-large heavy guns. On top of that, increasing the number of guns in the salvo would probably increase the pattern size, realistically speaking, and more shells spread over a wider area isn't necessarily likely to score any more - or, for that matter, any less - hits than fewer shells spread over a smaller area. If you were talking about something like 12 or 15 6" guns versus 8 or 9 8" guns, where you're looking at many more and notably faster firing guns on the one hand than on the other, or perhaps even something like 8 16" guns versus 12 14" guns, where you're only looking at many more guns on the one hand than the other, then maybe, but for something like 8 15" guns versus 10 14" guns I'm a bit doubtful that there's enough of a difference in overall volume of fire for the lighter gun to score notably more hits than the heavier gun in a given period of time.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 19, 2019 16:35:30 GMT -6
While some questioned the benefit of this upgrade at he cost of two 14" barrels I personally feel that the "lighter guns can compensate for lower expected damage per hit with higher expected hits per time period" argument doesn't work very well with heavy guns. The practical difference in rate of fire per gun becomes pretty marginal (especially at longer engagement ranges, realistically, though I don't know to what extent the game models the impact of engagement range on actual rate of fire) so there's not much difference in the number of salvos per time period, and the absolute difference in the number of guns you're putting into a single salvo isn't likely to be very large when looking at two similarly-large heavy guns. On top of that, increasing the number of guns in the salvo would probably increase the pattern size, realistically speaking, and more shells spread over a wider area isn't necessarily likely to score any more - or, for that matter, any less - hits than fewer shells spread over a smaller area. If you were talking about something like 12 or 15 6" guns versus 8 or 9 8" guns, where you're looking at many more and notably faster firing guns on the one hand than on the other, or perhaps even something like 8 16" guns versus 12 14" guns, where you're only looking at many more guns on the one hand than the other, then maybe, but for something like 8 15" guns versus 10 14" guns I'm a bit doubtful that there's enough of a difference in overall volume of fire for the lighter gun to score notably more hits than the heavier gun in a given period of time. At longer ranges that does seem to be the case (my 8 gun 12" ships don't seem to land less hits than 10 gunned 14" ships), But I do tend to find myself often fighting close range battles. Most major battle of the war against the British were fought at very short ranges, where I think the 2 additional gun definitely has its values (penetration is more or less guaranteed at that point anyways). Granted, I'd rather avoid these kind of brawls and design my ship for longer ranged engagements, but I can see those in my fictional admiralty being a bit more warm to the idea of having more guns given the kind of action my ships were seeing. In most of my other games I tend to either jump from 12/13 in to 15" directly, or go 12-14-16". So I guess this is also a bit more of an experiment to see a smaller 14-15" jump are worth it. (I also have 16" available around 1922-23ish, so I am also kinda on the fence about whether to do more 15" ships at all at this point)
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 23, 2019 22:58:41 GMT -6
Lynx Class Light Carrier - 1925 Ships in Class: Lynx, Thunderbird
BackgroundsCarries had been something the Canadian navy was eager to experiment with since the end of the last decade. However, budgetary constraints, war time priority on capital ships and cruisers meant that it took two years for Canada to go from having a working torpedo bomber to their first converted carrier. Calgary was a ship with an impressive history, but also a rather poor carrier conversion in service. Calgary's armor belt was mostly left as essentially deadweight, and her short length as an armored cruiser meant she cannot support a long flight deck nor a large hanger. Wartime performance of Calgary was also mediocre. Limited aircrafts on the Calgary meant that after scouting, there is usually not enough working bombers for a strike run. Nevertheless, the potential of aerial attack have been clearly demonstrated in the aftermath of Battle of Cape Breton, when the retreating 28000 ton battleship Anson was seriously damaged by aerial torpedo. Thus, following the completion of the Huron, enough funding was spared for Canada to finally begin constructing a pair of dedicated carriers that can hopefully allow carrier based air wings to reach their full tactical potential. Overview
Being dedicated carrier from design, the Lynx Class are built akin to large cruisers (Compared to converted battlecruiser of the US, or very small light cruiser sized carrier of the RN). She feature an enclosed bow to address the seaworthiness of the overweighted and open-bowed Calgary. Being much longer and having two main hangers and lifts, Lynx class can carry 29 aircrafts to Calgary's 17, despite having similar displacements. Not built for direct confrontation, Lynx relies on spotting any signs of trouble and getting out of the way as soon as possible. Thus she sprout the classical large masts of Canadian warships, though in operation Pilots have noted the turbulence created by the large mast and her short funnel making it difficult to land while the ship is moving. Airgroup
With a capacity of 29 aircrafts, Lynx class carry two squadron of 20 Viking Swordfish-C model as its standard strike group. As Canadian ships had never came under aerial attack, the importance of CAP is not quite being emphasized. As a result only 9 fighter aircraft were being carried, and they were more expected to escort the bombers or distract attacking enemy bomber than any kind of serious screening. Despite being one of the oldest carrier based torpedo bomber in service (first developed in 1918, current model in 1921), the venerable Viking Swordfish remains one of the longest ranged torpedo bomber and is faster than all but the latest German and French models. The aircraft's lack of any machine guns for aerial combat was the main reason why 9 fighters were carried aboard the Lynx class. The newly introduced Canadian fighter, Diamond Defiant, are a rather mediocre aircraft. It is faster than most of her competitors and a match for the RN's Typhoon. However the Defiant have subpar range(but enough to keep up with a torpedo carrying swordfish out to 105 nm), and mounts only a single heavy machine gun (fire power 2), half compared to her RN competitor. Armament
Unlike the US converted battlecruisers, Lynx class are not designed to engage any surface vessel larger than a destroyer. Experience with Calgary have shown that when operating with a fleet, it is very rare for the carriers to come under attack given proper screening and scouting. However, the risk of aerial attacks are something she cannot hide from or out run. Thus the Lynx Class mounts 8 4" DP guns like those being outfitted on Canadian capital ships. Together with 12 dual heavy AA HMG mounts, the class have more AA capability than any Canadian warships. The 4" guns can also drive away destroyer attacks but should not be expected to handle anything larger. Armor
To fit as much aircraft as possible on the Lynx class, armor is the most obvious area to sacrifice. She is only equipped with 2" belt to defend against destroyer grade weaponries. However, given the relatively slow speed of the Lynx class, it might take a while for her to retreat from a larger foe, thus risking being hit at longer ranges. Therefore her vital magazine and machinery area under hanger are also protected by an 2" armored deck, which can hopefully prevent her from suffering catastrophic machinery or magazine damage while escaping. The 2" deck can also resist some lighter bombs being used by other navy, but any solid bomb hit are likely going to deal serious damage to her unarmored flight deck or hanger. Since aerial torpedo is the weapon of choice of the Canadian navy, the Lynx class is also designed with a torpedo belt to protect against lighter aerial torpedo hits. This taken up considerable interior space that could've meant 4-5 more aircrafts, but was thought to be a necessary sacrifice given the most likely attack against these ships would be from the air. Speed
Lynx class was designed with faster speed than the old Calgary class to assist in aircraft take off and to keep her distance against enemy battle line. However, a large powerplant will seriously cut into hanger space, which is at a premium on the relatively light carrier. Thus a speed of 25 knots was deemed sufficient. Enough to escape from enemy battleships and keep up with friendly battle line. This does put her at risk against faster cruisers and battle cruisers, but it is assumed that in operation She'd (hopefully) be properly escorted by friendly heavy units and destroyers. September,1925, the two new carriers undergoes sea-trial together with the Battlecruiser Cree. Due to British submarine presence these ships are under heavy destroyer escort.
This would be my first serious effort at making a scratch built carrier in FtD, and I have to say its a pretty fun learning process, and the final results turned out to be fairly allright. (I was half expecting cooking up something like "Bathtub with deck" in the end) My one regret was the pagoda being too small when compared to the whole carrier.... Here is a comparsion with the good ol' Calgary.
|
|
|
Post by enioch on Nov 24, 2019 19:10:12 GMT -6
My god, the Calgary is short fat and proud of that
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 25, 2019 1:02:36 GMT -6
My god, the Calgary is short fat and proud of that basically what happens with a 1902 CA being converted into a carrier. But she is a proud ship indeed, fat or no XD.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 30, 2019 23:20:38 GMT -6
Hi All, As I've been relatively busy the past week and will likely be so for awhile, I unfortunately have to slow down my updates for the next week or two. However, given this small break, I thought I'd start a pole regarding the next course of action in the current AAR. With the Cree and 2 CVl finished, there is a 6,700k opening in the budget. With 10 of the Sept-Illes class large DD entering service over the next 2-6 months, the free budget will be further increased to about 11,000k. With this much money to go around, it is perhaps time to consider the next step of construction. Rather than specific designs, I've listed several areas of the navy that could see expansion, and would like to hear your opinion on the matter. If you have any alternative opinions also feel free to comment below Option A: Strengthen the Battleline
Currently, Canada primarily relies on its 2 Quebec Class and 2 New Brunswick Class Battleships. These ship had performed well in the past but their age begin to show, and they have to contend with 11 RN battleships in the current war, half of which are comparable to the Canadian ships in armament if not armor, with a large 42000 ton dreadnought entering service in a years time. While it is unlikely that these ships can enter service in this war, they might be very useful in a future conflict with USA or Germany. USA have 10 battleships while Germany have 15, which are almost all superior to the Canadian ships save for 5 decade-old German dreadnoughts. 3 battleships around 40000 ton(Which is the dockyard limit) in displacement and armed with 8 16" guns can be built by stretching the budget a little. Alternatively, 2 battleship can be built, saving some fund for other vessels. The concern with this path is that given background Canadian propulsion and armor weight saving tech, it might be difficult to get these ships to higher speeds of 24-25 knots without sacrificing protection. Alternatively, these ship can be ordered from the French to make use of Quad turrets and their larger yards, but this will further bump up their cost, making it hard to fit 3 ships in the budgets, and maybe hit extra hard if caught with a post war budget cut. Option B: Strength the Battlecruisers
Canada's battlecruiser force have two of the more advanced Battlecruisers in the world, Huron and Cree. But otherwise relies on two old Yukon class battlecruiser that cannot compete with modern ships. Against the RN which possess 7 modern battlecruisers, the Huron and Cree are only marginally superior while being hopelessly outnumbered. Germany have a massive fleet of 14 Battlecruisers, while most older models with 15 years of vintage, there are 6 modern ships of comparable performance to the Huron and Cree. USA, notably, converted all of its Battlecruisers into carriers, and instead have a large fleet of 9 heavy cruisers in the 13000-15000 ton range (UK is the only other enemy country building heavy cruisers.) If additional battlecruisers are to be built, they can be equipped with 16" guns to match the most advanced designs from other nations. Alternatively, seeing USA's reliance on Carrier and Heavy cruiser, smaller and faster battlecruiser maybe built to specifically hunt down these threats. Option C: A or B + 1-2 Fleet Carrier
Given the advent of naval aviation, it may make sense to take advantage of this development by building larger dedicated fleet carrier. However, current carrier tech does not allow for ships beyond 20000 ton, and we can only fit about 28-30 knot of speed with 40-50 aircrafts within that displacement. The navy would be reluctant to build so much carriers without either the BC or BB force being more strengthened, so any carrier construction will likely tag along with a BC or BB program for 2BB/BC + 1-2 CV as opposed to 3BB/BC. Option D: Fleet Carriers + Heavy Cruiser/Small BC
Given USA's focus on heavy cruiser and its position as our most likely future enemy, it may be worthwhile to invest in these ship of our own, or small BC to specifically hunt down US Carrier and CA in a future way. USA have no battlecruisers, meaning our BC and large CA can have free reign over much of their fleet. This approach can fit 2 fleet carrier and 4 heavy cruiser in the 13000-15000 ton range fairly comfortably, and can be more flexibly adjusted in the event of a post war budget cut.(Cancelling 1-2 of the CA will likely rebalance the budget together with other cost saving measurers.) Canada have high quality 8/9/10" guns, which is something that a heavy cruiser force can make great use of to triumph over their US counter parts. The downside is Canada is already investing in two 13000 ton CA armed with 12 8" guns, due to complete in a year's time. Additional CA are welcome in the event of a future war against US or Japan, both having invested heavily in these force and are relatively limited in BCs. Against the RN,Germany, and Russia, however, they will likely struggle against the Large BC forces of these nations. However, these three nation also have fairly significant number of CLs, and the CA may retain a role in hunting those down. Option E: Fleet Carriers + CL/DDDue to the lack of dual turret tech in CL, any CL we can build will likely be of limited improvement compared to the Saint John Class, but Canadian CL's have performed very well in the war, and it may not hurt to invest in more. However, given the aforementioned CA threats from countries like US, CL will likely struggle in future small scale engagements if they found themselves facing enemy CAs. The relative cheap cost of CL also meant that more DD could be built as well. Once the 1500 ton Sept-Iles Class enter service, Canada will have 19 large modern DD over 1300 ton. These ships are very advanced and performed well in combat, but their aggressive use also meant their losses can be heavy. Investing more might not be a bad idea if the war goes on for awhile longer. Further, this option is most likely to have an impact in the current war given the DD can enter service within a year. However, the current situation at the front are going decently well, and there is no significant need to build more DDs at the moment. (Which could certainly change with a few large fleet battles).
Here is the link to the pole, feel free to pick multiple options. Voting Link
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Dec 10, 2019 21:44:01 GMT -6
Sept-Iles Class Destroyer (1925) 10 Ships in Class
Canadian destroyer doctrine up till the 20s had been focused on making fairly cheap, fast crafts armed with as many torpedo as possible. Torpedo attacks are thought to be necessary in making up for the relatively small battleline of the Canadian Navy. However, experience at war had shown that while result can be achieved in favorable conditions, it is often associated with very heavy loss of Canadian destroyers. Up till now, the navy had accepted destroyers as mostly expendable units and tries to build them cheap, while not compromising on speed and torpedo tubes. However, destroyer action in the English Channel in 1924 had demonstrated that Canadian destroyer can struggle to sink their Royal Navy counter part even when out numbering them 3 to 1. Longer ranged torpedo also meant that destroyer attack on capital ships were less hazardous than before. This meant the navy is once again considering larger, powerful destroyer design. While close in size to the Oliver class torpedo destroyer before, the new Sept-Iles class remains a highly balanced design that is just as capable of fighting off enemy destroyers as carrying torpedo attacks by themselves. The combination of speed, firepower and torpedo's made this class the most powerful destroyer in the world by far at the time of their introduction. However, being 25% more expensive than the proceeding Chateauguay class at 5.7million dollars a ship(5% the cost of a Quebec class battleship), this class is a marked departure from earlier cheap, disposable destroyers of the Canadian navy. Weaponry
The Sept-Iles class is incredibly well armed for its 1500 ton size. Similar sized destroyers around the world are usually armed with 3-4 5inch guns, and 4-6 torpedo tubes(the French use 3x3 torpedo tubes on their latest design). The Sept-Iles on the other hand, being the only first destroyer class to mount dual 5" turrets, carrying 6 5inch guns. The Sept-Iles class is also the first destroyer in the world to use quadruple torpedo launchers, giving it 8 tubes on two mounts, which helped keeping the length and size of the ship down compared to the Oliver class, which used 3x3 mounts. Thus Sept-Iles outgun any other of its weight class, and is more than a match for the standard 1100 ton RN destroyer with 3-4 5" guns. It even have a modest AA capability of 4 dual HMG mounts. The only sacrifice in weaponry was the removal of mine-carrying capabilities, which was a small sacrifice for a fleet destroyer. On the otherhand, like most Canadian destroyers, the Sept-Iles class only carry limited amount of depth charge with a simple Hydrophone, which limit its ASW capabilities somewhat. Top down view of the Sept-Iles Class, note the dual 5" turret and simple blast/wave shielding over the launching mechanism of the torpedo tubes. Speed
The Sept-Iles class was a very compact design with no space wasted, but despite the heavy armament, no speed was sacrificed. Like earlier Canadian designs, she maintain a high speed of 33 knots. While slightly faster speed to keep ahead of some newer foreign designs would be appreciated, her heavy armament is pushing the hull to its limit. Any additional speed will come at the expense of range or reliability, which was not an option for such a relatively expensive ship. To maintain enough top side space for its torpedo tubes and guns, both set of Sept-Iles class' 4 boilers are shafted through a single, large midship funnel. This is a very distinctive feature of the class compared to earlier Canadian design's multiple, thin funnels.
Anyways, I managed to make some time to get this update out. Thus I am caught up with regards to having every ship currently in my navy modeled. The next update will be for the next few months of the campaign. Given this week remains a busy one, it will probably not be until next week before I am able to work on the next update. In the meanwhile, thanks for everyone's vote on the construction poll. Given the division between BB+CV and BC+CV, I am looking to see if I can somehow fit a fast battleship design into the construction plan. That said, my technology is kinda holding me back, so it might be worth a shot to order from the French. In anycase, I do look forward to what I can cook up
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Dec 11, 2019 17:02:12 GMT -6
As much info as the public can get it's greedy hands on, the Sept-Iles does seem to be a "high-end", balanced and excellent all-rounder. Due to my most recent save I can especially support the 5" main armament. Originally in this particular playtrough I went with 8x4" thinking it will be good enough, but I've encountered troubles with hostile destroyers armed with 5" guns to an alarming extent. Now, I did not really took any time to do any ""analysis"" of some sort, not even checking shell weight or anything really, so all this is based solely on my gut feeling, but for the time being, thumbs up for the 5"!
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 12, 2019 9:45:24 GMT -6
I like the design. It is quite reasonable costly with very good firepower and torpedo mounts. This ship can be very useful through whole game.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Dec 20, 2019 0:00:21 GMT -6
1925 - The Next Generation of Battleships
Following the completion of the Cree and two Lynx class carrier. The navy begin to make plans for more constructions with the freed up budget. While the need for an even larger aircraft carrier is agreed upon by most within the navy, there are still plenty of funding left over. While not likely to see action within the current war, most expert agreed that at least a pair of new capital ships should be constructed to accompany the modern carrier. However, there is considerable division over whether the additional capital ships should be line battleships or battlecruisers. (Thanks everyone for the poll by the way, here is the result. ) On the one hand, the Canadian battle line of 4 14" equipped battleships are no match for modern ships with 15/16" gun(but can still match most older RN BBs). On the other hand, Canadian battlecruiser squadron require some serious reinforcement to replace the two venerable Yukon class. Thus, the navy decides to construct a new style of battleship that attempts to combine the best aspect of battleship and battlecruisers. Given the Huron and Cree already made significant investment in armor that makes them almost as well protected as the Quebec and New Brunswick class battleships (Especially at longer ranges), it is not difficult to imagine a newer, larger vessel that combines adequate protection, strong firepower, and good speed. However, given that Canadian docks can only manage to build ship up to 40,000 ton of size, the navy may have to look elsewhere for a dock that can build their "Fast Battleships". Fortunately Canada's French ally are in a such position to provide the dockyards needed. Having been focused on cruiser and destroyer construction during the war, the French are more than happy to build the proposed Canadian battleships to put their larger yards to use. This also allows Canadian experts a chance to make use of the comparatively more advanced French ship building techniques, and hopefully learn from the process. The Erie Class Fast Battleship
The design process begin in August, 1925 with a joint French/Canadian team, and would not be finalized until the end of the year. The design would be one of the largest battleship then in construction, matched only by the British Rodney class laid down half a year prior. However, even with more advanced French shipbuilding technology, fitting speed, armor and firepower on a relatively affordable hull still requires compromises in various areas. Most importantly, in order to make use of 16" guns on a ship that displaces only about 4,000 tons more than the Cree, while STILL improving protection, the conventional triple or twin turret lay out of the Canadian navy had to be abandoned. Instead, Canadian designer agreed to the French proposal of using quad turrets to reduce weight per gun. While this concentrated all the ship's fire power into two turrets, those are extremely heavily armored to protect them from most mid-long range engagements even against the ship's own 16" guns. A knot of speed had to be sacrificed compared to earlier Canadian Battlecruisers to keep the engine space somewhat manageable in size, and the ship deliver less horsepower than the Cree. The larger hull width to accommodate the massive 16" quad turret also did not help in this regard, one can only hope that at least French Quad turret design are as reliable as the French claim them to be. This speed still makes them much faster than any battleship then in serivce, and able to match some of the slower battlecruisers around the world. The ship also did away with casemates commonly found on all earlier Canadian ships, and carries less 6" guns in general. To make up for this deficiency, a relatively large amount of 4" DP guns are added to put out more shots against destroyer sized targets. In terms of protection, the class is the most well protected ship in the Canadian navy to date, especially at longer rangers. Given the power of 16" guns, she cannot remain completely safe until a range of over 18,000 yards, but she will be able to resist 14/15" guns much better than earlier Canadian warships. While the French offer a more comprehensive system of torpedo protection, Canadian designer opted for their existing system of water-filled torpedo bulkheads used on the Cree class (TDS 3) to keep the weight within acceptable levels. In any case, while many compromise had to be made to keep the ship effective while affordable within the planned construction program, this class does seem to be able to meet the demand of a ship that could provide heavy scouting and serve in the battle line at the same time. Their slightly slower speed might hinder their ability to hunt down enemy cruisers, but they are well positioned to provide back up for the faster Canadian battlecruisers who are better fitted to chase down lighter enemy ships. French Battleship Redoutable before her recent refit, whose quad 14" turret provided the basis for those to be used on the Erie Class.Aug 1925 - Nov 1925 - Preparing for the Decisive Battle?
While The Franco-Canadian alliance had been pressuring the Royal Navy for almost half a year now, they did not have enough ship to maintain a constant blockade. However, with the completion of two light carriers and the Cree, the fragile balance could potentially be tipped. In the month of September and October, Franco-Canadian forces were able to easily attack two large British convoys while the RN forces refused battle. However, on the later half of October, intelligence reports that 3 RN battleships had arrived in Newfoundland and begin to intercept Canadian shipping. Battle of Convoy BH-92 had been a miraculous victory, but the Canadian navy did not wish to test its outdated Yukon and Alberta class against 3 more modern RN dreadnought. Thus, a large convoy was lost to the RN attacks in October. RN hoped to use this force to pin the Cree and the two Lynx class(which are still fitting out as of October) in North America. This however, did create an opening in Europe. Only 5 dreadnought battleship and 5 battlecruiser remains in Northern Europe. This is now something a combined Canadian-French effort could potentially overcome, and for once the French side was able to respond quickly enough for a joint action to be arranged to take advantage of this rare window of opportunity. In November, the battlecruiser Huron would sortie by itself into the Celtic sea to raid British shipping, it would be followed by a joint French-Canadian battlefleet to ambush and destroy any British fleet that came out to meet the Huron.
Here is a small-ish update for the next part of the campaign. As you can probably tell, I chose to cut this update here due to running into a rather major engagement. That will be covered in detail in the next update or two, but I do want to get some more content for this one so I decided to show the new battleship design I came up with in the meantime.
|
|