|
Post by kasuga on May 14, 2015 6:34:51 GMT -6
I think more in Deutschland class, i dont want an oversized CA... i want something around 15.000 tons (class 1 around 10.000) with 280mm guns (6 is the perfect number for me, the point is how deploy them, i dont discard if is possible 7 guns with 2 double and 1 triple turret or even 2 triple+1 double).
I want a fast ship (over 27 knots) to hunt light forces, merchants, finish ships... if i want invest true money i move to BCs.
I allways feel that in WWI the gap between CLs and BCs leave a big empty space where the old CAs cant survive because lack of options to adapt, is curious but the Washington open the door to fill the gap with a very usefull class at the point that CLs need evolve to something they never need be until CAs appear.
The problem i see in the models you add is that for a WWI period invest in BCs around 25.000 tons and leave around 30.000 BBs is a better thing because in the end you dont need care about airplanes and you dont need more than BCs (the WWI period BCs not the WWII period superBCs) as fast heavy scouts for the fleet and well that superBCs sure are going to be prohibitive for the national budget if you want mantein your core force of BBs and regular BCs.
RTW is going to open an interesting number of options to create the "perfect fleet" i see in future a lot of special ships to try solve the same problems.
|
|
gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on May 14, 2015 6:46:24 GMT -6
Deutschland class are a very specific ship. In German classification "panzerschiff', equal to, e.g. old pre-dreadnought battleship Deutschland (because according to Versaiiles Treaty German Navy was limitations to 6 10,000 tonnes battleships, like old Deutcshland class). In Allied free-classification, a new Deutschland class was "pocket battleship". Really Deutschland class is no battleship, no battlecruiser, no heavy cruiser/CA.
Deutschland class is a specific "merchant flows destroyer", with enormous operational range (17,400 naval miles at 13 knots), with theoretical capacities to sucsessfully fight with Washington-Treaty 10,000 tons heavy cruisers/CA`s, and to run out of strong opponents, like 25 knots battleships. Practically, Graf Spee are shut down in a River Plate Battle...
This ship, like Deutschland class, is useful in the game, if in game mechanics exists a model of raider operations, or strategic planning of big counter-merchant operations in Atlantic, Indian, Pacific Oceans. If no, a classic battleship or battlecruiser is a more effective.
And, the big operational range with engines of 1900-1918 period is no implementing without a sophisticated diesels...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2015 7:21:05 GMT -6
Navweaps has interesting forums as well. The Battleship vs Battleships and the Design a Navy / Ship forum has a lot of discussions on ship construction and alternate ship designs that should be of interest to anyone contemplating RTW. Though as on all forums there are sometimes people getting very agitated and even rude in discussions like about the armor thickness of ships that weren't even built!
warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/directory#.VVQ3M00w-Cg
I agree, I've used the Warship1 forum many times to research and get some ideas on my own ship designs. The people on this forum do have some strong opinions.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2015 7:26:33 GMT -6
This is a Russian professional fleet forum. Many of her users are fleet officers, engineers and researchers. tsushima.su/forums/index.php
SpringSharp is a very interesting device, but NO accurate. It is impossible to create a very realistic project with SpringSharp. It is necessary to make all of calculations manually!
About Lanchester equations. Both Lanchester equations are creating for modelling a infantry battles, first equation for ancient armies (e.g. Roma Legions), the second - for modern armies with guns. Lanchester equations is no corrects for naval battle calculation. For example, in 1904-1918 has no any naval battle with many sinked ships, with time 1-2, 2,5 hours. The battleships of this period had a very enormous survivability. Captain Wayne Hughes has developed from the Lanchester models, his own, Salvo models for Naval purposes. He offers them in his book. There are monographs on the DTIC website that you can search for; search for Hughes Salvo Model. - Be advised that the model developed was for missile combat between surface ships, but has been adapted as a gunfire model. The models developed by Admiral Bradley Fiske are better for gunfire.
warshipphilosophy.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/the-salvo-model/ - Explains the Hughes Salvo Models
Springsharp is not perfect but after a while you can get some accurate information about directions that the design of ships could have gone. I've used it to compare specifications found in many books by Norman Friedman and the late D.K. Brown.
Here is a blog from England by a man who uses Springsharp and makes drawings of the ships he designs, I've used it for years as a learning tool - dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/
|
|
gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on May 14, 2015 7:51:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 14, 2015 9:38:05 GMT -6
The speed is the best protection for me. So I prefer well-armed ship with high speed and without armor like Courageous. Here is my battle cruiser with extreme values
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2015 10:57:54 GMT -6
The speed is the best protection for me. So I prefer well-armed ship with high speed and without armor like Courageous. Here is my battle cruiser with extreme values I believe that you will need about 170,000 HP to drive that ship to 34 knots and that will double the size of the bunker requirements for coal or oil. If you drop the speed to 30 Knots, you will only need about 101,000 HP. This gives you plenty of speed and might allow for some armor to protect the vital parts of the ship. Armor only contributes about 30% of the total weight whereas hull, fittings and equipment contributes over 40%. This includes the bunker space. I used the designship, dropped the speed to 30 Knots and was able to add at least a 3 inch belt, and with a double turret up forward, the ships weight went to 17149 tons with additional turret and turret top armor. I also went to 15 inch guns, on dual mounts which will reduce the barbette width which will decrease the width of the ship, increasing the LtoBeam and that will give us more speed. Thanks for sharing your design.
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 14, 2015 11:28:12 GMT -6
ok, here is the second version of the project with reduced speed and increased turret armor and anti torpedo protection. In accordance with this concept it is impossible to protect all ship from heavy shells and I use all possible armor for turrets only
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 14, 2015 11:53:53 GMT -6
Not bad but i never like a lot ships with turrets only forward... i find they are terrible bad if need run for their lifes... are good hunters but when are in bad situations... i prefer a more "classic" design with at least a double (better triple) turret to cover rear and a pair of turrets forward.
Something i need ask, the game is going to add the option to see smoke in the battle??? artificial and made by guns???
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2015 12:00:39 GMT -6
ok, here is the second version of the project with reduced speed and increased turret armor and anti torpedo protection. In accordance with this concept it is impossible to protect all ship from heavy shells and I use all possible armor for turrets only I don't mean to be critical, but your ship needs to have deck and belt armor to survive. At long ranges, even with director fire, you might only get a hit percentage of less than 10%. To be effective, you will have to move in closer and during that run in, you will be vulnerable to counterfire from your opponent. All weapons systems need to be balance with both armor, speed and gun power. You will also have to add a turret up forward, you will not always be able to gain advantages in position. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jdkbph on May 14, 2015 12:05:16 GMT -6
A battleship that is unable to survive enemy shells is complete useless and well speed NEVER was protection, is more tactical/operational advantage but not a protection feature. If you design a ship that is a "damage dealer" you need it survive the enemy´s damage. The poster who said Fire Control was spot on. Also, I would disagree with the above. Speed allows you to dictate the engagement range. When you understand your own capabilities and weaknesses as well as the enemy's, you will often be able to identify a range where you can hurt the enemy but the enemy can't hurt you. Aka, the immune zone. At the very least there most likely be will be a range where you can maximize your effectiveness, offensive and defensive... assuming your ships were designed intelligently, while minimizing the enemy's. Also, depending on the mission goals, this will also give you the flexibility to accept/force or decline battle.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2015 12:33:41 GMT -6
Speed advantage in naval warfare is ephemeral. The rate of movement of your fleet moves at the speed of the slowest ship and sea conditions which should affect all combatants. Speed advantage for Beatty did not help him much, nor did it help Battleship Squadron 5 however the armor did. Many would disagree but Beatty's speed advantage wasn't much, I wouldn't rely on the mathematically derived immune zone.
Here is a quote about immune zone by William Jurens in his article on the NavWeaps website. It is contained in the "loss of HMS Hood" article:
I would prefer not to rest my fate on a computational immune zone. I guess I am not as brave as all of you.
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 14, 2015 12:34:38 GMT -6
You are right jdkbph BUT if you cant "dance" with enemy because a hit means you are dead is not a great deal and remember that not only BBs are in battle... if enemy has other fast ships can try score a hit and reduce your speed and after lose speed game over, why not use DDs and CLs to force your ship enter in the slow BBs kill range???
I dont say speed is not usefull BUT is more easy beat the combo speed+gun than gun+armor... sometimes you simple need fight enemy and you cant fight as you want.
But this is the fun point in RTW is not a single option to solve a problem and i am curious about what we can see when "admirals" send their requirements to the shipyars hehehe.
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 14, 2015 12:35:06 GMT -6
why forward? I use aft guns position! It is the best place for such concept
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2015 12:42:32 GMT -6
why forward? I use aft guns position! It is the best place for such concept Because you cannot predict that you be in a tactically advantageous position everytime you engage the enemy. Many times, you will be out of position and surprised. If you only have stern weapons then you have to turn at a set of angles which puts your propulsion systems in the spotlight and vulnerable to gunfire. If they take hits, you will slow down possibly losing steering and now you are just a target.
|
|