|
Post by dorn on Oct 9, 2019 12:29:57 GMT -6
March 1914
Personal log - the 2nd of March 1914
Today I gratulate Admiral Captainloggy as battleship Taranto was being commissioned. She is really nice ship with two large funnels, large pagoda in fron of them with a lot of casemates in her hull. Her maintanence costs is expected to be only slightly higher than Lepanto class which give me another argument to replace Lepanto class battlecruisers as soon as possible.
Personal log - the 5th of March 1914
Our intelligence have just inform me that their spy was able to acquire plans of stable explosive filter from Austria-Hungary. It means our shells could be improved and our penetration power increased. I will ask for actual estimation of our 14" and 15" penetration power. And I will contact Germans and American to ask about 2-3 variants of battlecruiser design. One should be with same displacement as variant I2. The other one should be their offer withing 100 M budget with at least same specifications. For Germany, I will ask one variant with 15" guns and two variants with 16" guns.
Our afternoon meeting about opened up discussion about aicraft operation on ships. Almost all admirals presented did not find it interesting. I agree with them but I take point to discuss it with our ally USN. We do not have funds to be the first however if it is feasible we should not be behind.
I get list of new construction and commisioned warships from foreign nations: Royal Navy - Tiger class battlecruiser was laid down - new type of 30000 tons battlecruiser
USN - South Caroline class battleship was laid down - the 4th of her class - 26500 tons, 21 knots, 10x12" main guns (2 wing turrets with cross deck firing), 13" belt armour
Imperial German Navy - battleship Helgoland is commissioned - the first ship of her class - 271000 tons, 8x13" main guns (3|23), 13.5" belt armour - they are considered as slightly worse to our Taranto class
Personal log - the 19th of March 1914
Patience is best remedy. We get report from our spy about French battlecruiser Dunkerque under construction. So finally we know she has only 14" guns. Her armour is inferior to our project Pronto battecruiser. I need to push to project full speed ahead as our spy expected one French battlecruiser ready next year and another one year after.
Another good news comes afternoon that we have finished our first test with mines fitted with hydrostatic pistol and results was much better than I expected. I ordered to continue with reasearch and equip all our destroyers and corvettes with such mines.
April 1914
Personal log - the 6th of April 1914
I have meeting with Naval Secretary and I was quite suprised the mentioned in good words that Navy is constructing 10 destroyers he requested and that opposite to another construction I did not cancel their construction.
Personal log - the 27th of April 1914
Finally I have all offers from foreign shipyards. They seems quite interesting. Germany provides us even with 4 different designs. Firstly I will ask of opinion of other Admirals and push approval of the Board.
Another report mentioned that our ally USA has laid down the 5th battleship of South Caroline class.
Personal log - the 29th of April 1914
I get the first draft from director of naval construction of light cruiser design I ask for. I named the project Povero.
I get information that USA has laid down the sixth battleship of South Caroline class. Do they try to catch up Royal Navy?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 9, 2019 12:42:17 GMT -6
My favourite is I4. In retrospect, I wonder why I never considered a cheap stopgap to fulfil the demand... I do not think it is only about stopgap. As you can see there are probably not better battlecruiser in any navy under construction. So there is no need for large battlecruiser and if any nation will design new generation there is still time to react. I do not try to build wish mega fleet but more react to situation as Italian funds are quite limited. Just simulate what happened in real history, smaller nations design was answer to their rivals and answer to design built by foreign leading naval powers.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 9, 2019 13:55:45 GMT -6
I am unclear as to the benefit of building U2 overseas instead of domestically; it looks like it's just a marginal cost savings?
My opinions on I1/I3 versus I2/I4 are unchanged.
Cheap options: G1 versus U2 - G1 has a heavier broadside but, due to the poor quality of German 15" guns, a shorter maximum range and worse armor penetration than U2. Overall main battery performance is probably roughly even, though if you're willing to shell out for gun upgrades G1 is better. - G1 is probably better protected against plunging fire and progressive flooding while U2 is probably better protected against low-trajectory fire. Overall slightly favor G1, though U2's armor scheme is probably slightly more suited to current practical engagement ranges. - U2's 10x5" secondary battery is probably slightly better against DDs and CLs than G1's 12x4" secondary battery. - U2 costs marginally less than G1. Overall, I very slightly favor U2 for the cheap option.
G2/G3/G4: - G2 has a slightly larger secondary battery than the others as well as slightly more ammunition for its main battery and a better-protected conning tower. - G3 has slightly more deck armor (4" instead of 3.5") - G4 is slightly faster (28 knots instead of 27) Overall, I very slightly favor G3; all of these could probably be improved for Italian purposes with Cramped Accommodations.
G2/G3/G4 versus I2/I4: - The Italian 15"/Q0 has slightly better range and armor penetration than the German 16"/Q-, though if you're willing to shell out for gun upgrades then the German 16" guns are better. - 10x5"/Q1 is probably a better secondary battery than 10-12x4"/Q1 under most circumstances. - AoN is probably better than sloped deck at long range with equal deck thickness while the inverse is true at short range with equal belt thickness, but for current practical engagement ranges AoN versus sloped deck is probably more or less a wash. Overall, I very slightly favor the G2/G3/G4 family of designs, entirely due to the AoN armor configuration of the German designs.
As to G1/U2 versus G2/G3/G4/U1/I2/I4, my preference is for the latter unless you strongly feel that the lower unit cost of the former is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Oct 9, 2019 14:08:59 GMT -6
Thank you! Happy to see them done, finally. I do like ships with many secondaries, perhaps I'll try to make an acessoire for stacked casemates, like the ones mycophobia used for the Albertas in his FtD AAR.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 9, 2019 15:01:48 GMT -6
Looking over all the designs, I'm perplexed. I would want the German 16" guns, but would settle for an I3 type gun configuration (the 3,2,3) but with 15" guns, not 14". I'd also make the minimum speed 27 and have 14" armor on the turrets, price and tonnage be damned. These designs will be our fleet's backbone for raiding and hunting in ten years, although I fully understand going over budget isn't possible. It is a difficult choice.
Curious, I was a bit taken aback at the low armor on the conning tower. I'm used to seeing values equal to that of turret armor or more. If you would please enlighten me on your values, I'd be better educated on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 9, 2019 15:21:19 GMT -6
I am unclear as to the benefit of building U2 overseas instead of domestically; it looks like it's just a marginal cost savings?
My opinions on I1/I3 versus I2/I4 are unchanged.
Cheap options: G1 versus U2 - G1 has a heavier broadside but, due to the poor quality of German 15" guns, a shorter maximum range and worse armor penetration than U2. Overall main battery performance is probably roughly even, though if you're willing to shell out for gun upgrades G1 is better. - G1 is probably better protected against plunging fire and progressive flooding while U2 is probably better protected against low-trajectory fire. Overall slightly favor G1, though U2's armor scheme is probably slightly more suited to current practical engagement ranges. - U2's 10x5" secondary battery is probably slightly better against DDs and CLs than G1's 12x4" secondary battery. - U2 costs marginally less than G1. Overall, I very slightly favor U2 for the cheap option.
G2/G3/G4: - G2 has a slightly larger secondary battery than the others as well as slightly more ammunition for its main battery and a better-protected conning tower. - G3 has slightly more deck armor (4" instead of 3.5") - G4 is slightly faster (28 knots instead of 27) Overall, I very slightly favor G3; all of these could probably be improved for Italian purposes with Cramped Accommodations.
G2/G3/G4 versus I2/I4: - The Italian 15"/Q0 has slightly better range and armor penetration than the German 16"/Q-, though if you're willing to shell out for gun upgrades then the German 16" guns are better. - 10x5"/Q1 is probably a better secondary battery than 10-12x4"/Q1 under most circumstances. - AoN is probably better than sloped deck at long range with equal deck thickness while the inverse is true at short range with equal belt thickness, but for current practical engagement ranges AoN versus sloped deck is probably more or less a wash. Overall, I very slightly favor the G2/G3/G4 family of designs, entirely due to the AoN armor configuration of the German designs.
As to G1/U2 versus G2/G3/G4/U1/I2/I4, my preference is for the latter unless you strongly feel that the lower unit cost of the former is necessary.
Thank aeson for your opinion, my reasons for construction of ship overseas are mainly to have possibility to look at foreign technology and shorter construction time. I agree that variants Ux are just only slightly better but Gx has AoN armour which could be benefical in longer run as Regia Marina does not have such budget to quickly replace older ships.
Relating to 15" Italian guns vs. 16" German guns, their horizontal penetration is same and their vertical penetration practically too as 16" German guns has edge at range between 14.000 - 17.000 yards, the Italian 15" guns over 17.000 yards and damage potential is higher for 16" German guns. Italian guns are probably a little more accurate and has very slight longer range. This means that 16" German guns are probably overall a little better having heavier broadside with compromise on slightly lower range and less accuracy.
I agree with you that I like G3 variant slightly better and that G3 variant is better than both G1/U2 cheap variant as 100M battlecruiser at this time is already quite cheap. I would probably prefer to change normal accomodation for cramped acomodation and increase displacement by 100 tons, using free tonnage for additional 2x4" guns and either increasing shells to 95 per gun or increasing turret armour by 0.5" to 14". Both variants cost 0.6M more than G3. Another option is decrease tonnage by 300 tons decreasing price by 0.7M making 1.2M which is about 1 % less costs than previous both variants of G3 design.
As G3 has only 6 guns in 3 turrets it seems variant adding 0.5" to turret armour as probably best.
What is your opinion on cheap cruiser which should be complement to much more expensive Milano class cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 9, 2019 15:25:19 GMT -6
Thank you! Happy to see them done, finally. I do like ships with many secondaries, perhaps I'll try to make an acessoire for stacked casemates, like the ones mycophobia used for the Albertas in his FtD AAR. My experience is that with battleships fighting in battle line their coordinated fire with help of destroyers is enough to damage destroyers to cancel their runs. And if enemy destroyers are really persistent they usually pay the price for that and there is still possible to change course in advance to evade torpedoes so I consider having 12-14 secondary guns as optimum for battleships.
Relating to battlecruisers I usually consider 10-12 guns as reasonable amount as they are faster so it is much more difficult for destroyers to get into good position to have good firing solution.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 9, 2019 15:45:45 GMT -6
Looking over all the designs, I'm perplexed. I would want the German 16" guns, but would settle for an I3 type gun configuration (the 3,2,3) but with 15" guns, not 14". I'd also make the minimum speed 27 and have 14" armor on the turrets, price and tonnage be damned. These designs will be our fleet's backbone for raiding and hunting in ten years, although I fully understand going over budget isn't possible. It is a difficult choice. Curious, I was a bit taken aback at the low armor on the conning tower. I'm used to seeing values equal to that of turret armor or more. If you would please enlighten me on your values, I'd be better educated on the subject. Right now I have monthly 16.7 M for ship construction. If you build such battlecruisers, they take away about 10M per months which get you 6.7M free meaning you can have some good destroyer / cruiser construction program or having additional 2 capital ships. This practically means that with construction time of 32 months, I am able every 1 year and 4 month start construction of new class of 2 capital ships. This allow me that I will never have older capital shps than 16 months and this should give me advantage without compromising budget and number of capital ships. I can build same battlecruiser with additional turret giving ship 8 guns but it would costs 23 % more and these ships will be not protected better. If something is going in bad way and I loose such ship it will be more troublesome as I would have less ships. The another important point is that in next 2 months Regia Marina will have 4 modern battleships and 5 obsolote battlecruisers that would be best to be scrapped. But this means I am less 3 battlecruisers against France and 6 battlecruisers against A-H. It would make things more difficult and much both nations would have much easier task to blockade me.
Another thing is that I need ships against their ships (including in construction) and for such tasks all designs are sufficient. If any of these battlecruisers will meet enemy battlecruiser I need she will sink that ship and it does not matter if it is done in 3 our 5 hours. And if you think about future and much better ships which will be built than these ships can still have a chance due to powerful guns and reasonable armour and mainly at that time Regia Marina will have newer battlecruiser to taking lead and fight this future ships.
Thinks about ships that their quality is from 1 to 5. If enemy has 1x1, 2x2, 2x4, I do not need to have 4x5, I need to have 1x2,2x3 and 2x5. That is enough to win and give better chance not to be blockaded.
Relating to conning tower look at weight of conning tower of G3 design: CT with 2.5" of armour - 69 tons CT with 13.5" of armour - 372 tons Increased costs of such ship is 3 %. How often conning tower is hit? What effect it has. Is it dangerous for ship itself. Yes if she is fighting for their life, otherwise not as it temporary loss helm, lower accuracy of guns but does not effect speed which is main advantage for battlecruiser to get out of trouble. Both principles has some merits advantages and disadvantages. But my experience is that conning tower hits are not so often, about 1 % of hits (I have some statistics from 663 hits by heavy shells to capital ships. They made only 6 hits to conning tower and 4 of them was on sinking ship). I can see several options. 1. CT about 2" - just splinter protection 2. CT about 4" - protection against secondary guns up to 6" caliber 3. CT about belt armour - protection same as machinery 4. CT about turret armour - max. protection
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 10, 2019 23:43:48 GMT -6
So what happened?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 11, 2019 14:27:57 GMT -6
May 1914
Personal log - the 5th of May 1914
I requested another design changes to varinat G3 requesting to make cramped accomodation, adding pair of 4" guns and adding 1" armoured shield to all 4" guns, increasing conning tower armour to 3" and named class after Leonardo da Vinci and today I have push this design through the Board. So finally we can place order for detailed drawings. I still need to decide if I order 2 or 3 ships. 2 ships is minimum against France and A-H, 3 ships would be better but tough budget than does not allow to quickly react on any new construction from French or Austria navy.
I change my mind about priority of developing new guns and give more funds to development new guns. I hope we can develop 16" guns too which will have better quality than German ones.
Personal log - the 15th of May 1914
Today Trentino battleship is commisioned and so I ordered another battlecruiser Leone to transfer her to reserve fleet.
Personal log - the 22nd of May 1914
Taranto has just finished working up and I get report of issues. There are still many issues however they are not important except turrets. They were too often jammed during testing. I am really happy that Leonardo da Vinci has standard double turrets.
Personal log - the 26th of May 1914
I have just intelligence report on new Austrian cruiser Chamaeleon under construction. She is really lightly armed and armoured but her speed 30 knots are really high and I will probably need reconsider Poverto project.
Another news from intelligence are that several ships in foreign yards was laid down: France - the 5th Nantes class battleship - 27100 tons, 26 knots, 8x13" guns, 13" belt
And commisioned ships: France - battleship Charlamagne - the 4th Nantes class battleship
Austria-Hungary - battleship Erzherzog Karl of Viribus Unitis class - 23000 tons, 22 knots, 12x12" guns (broadside 10x12" guns), 10.5" belt
According this intelligence report it seems I will order only 2 battlecruisers and I will start preparing new battleship project. So I ordered to have budget overview with projection of 1 battlecruiser laid down in September, the second one in November. The first cruiser of new class with costs of 17M laid down in October, the second one in December. And that there should be line with for construction that reserve funds of navy would be 60-90M which is enough to build several cruisers or start of new clas 10 months ahead of schedule.
June 1914
Personal log - the 14th of June 1914
I got summary of budget. Now it is clear that 2 battlecruiser, 2 cruiser and later 2 battleships seems reasonable solution.
Personal log - the 17th of June 1914
I have been informed that La Spezia Navy Yard had increased slipt to accomodate hulls of 35500 tons displacement. Tantalo and Tullio has been commisioned so our 1st battle division will be ready soon.
Personal log - the 21st of June 1914
It seems we have strenght point in our intelligence as they was able to acquire knowledge of base fuzes. I have been informed too that our industry increased quality control during production processes of steel and armour. Our intelligence thinks that our technology has increased in this year dramatically and our position is average between the seven largest naval powers and it is better than Austria-Hungary, Russia and mostly unexpected Germany.
Personal log - the 29th of June 1914
I have regually report of ship commisioned and new construction of main naval powers. United Kingdom - commissioned Inconstant battlecruiser - 27400 tons New Zealand class
Germany - commissioned Rheiland battleship - 271000 tons Helgoland class
Germany - commissioned Möchengladbach battlecruiser - 27500 tons new Graf Spee class - 25 knots, 8x14" guns, 12" belt armour
It seems that Graf Spee class is quite similar to our new battlecruiser project, except using 8x14" worse quality guns vs. we use 6x16" guns and 2 knots slower. However Germany is 3 years ahead.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 11, 2019 16:28:41 GMT -6
Very interesting developments! I think your BC design with longer ranged heavier hitting guns, although being fewer in number, will be adequate to defeat the German BC as it will be able to control the engagement in regards to range being a faster BC. I like the Leonardo da Vinci design.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 12, 2019 4:02:54 GMT -6
Very interesting developments! I think your BC design with longer ranged heavier hitting guns, although being fewer in number, will be adequate to defeat the German BC as it will be able to control the engagement in regards to range being a faster BC. I like the Leonardo da Vinci design. The ships are built against French and Austria Navy as I cannot see how German and Italian Navy can meet in battle in their home areas. And Leonardo da Vinci was developed to operate only in the Mediterranean.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Oct 12, 2019 5:01:28 GMT -6
I thought BCs can only go above 12 in of belt if they are 31 knots or faster. Was that changed?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 12, 2019 5:51:32 GMT -6
July 1914
Personal log - the 3rd of July 1914
Our security agreement with USA has just expired. It is quite a pity as we can benefit from USA industry capacity, technology and their ports. I ask Read Admiral Dizzy to come to my office. I officially name him as chairman of new committee Overseas trade protection and ask him to make a report on that issue. Questions are simple with taking into consideration French Navy as enemy. What are our possibilities to protect overseas trade lines where we have no bases (mainly Northern Europe)? Which ships we have could be useful? What ships we need to build to secure our trade in case of war? I have informed Rear Admiral that Admiral Captainloggy and Captain Kriegsmeister of cruiser Foggia were named members. The remaining 2 members he can choose.
Afternoon I received message that commissioning of destroyer Ascaro has proceed without any issue. I did not stopped construction of these ship even if I had and still have quite a doubt about their usefulness.
Personal log - the 15th of July 1914
So USA did it, they manage what French did not and opens Panama canal.
Another good news I get today. We are starting to refit the 1st ship, battleship Taranto with 12 ft rangefinder and Ansaldo factory ends testing her new 9" naval gun and according to report .
Personal log - the 30th of July 1914
I get regular report on new construction and commissioned warship in this month.
Germany laid down new class of battleship Elsass - 29000 tons
Royal Navy commissioned Lion battlecruiser of New Zealand class - 27400 tons, 25 knots, 8x15" guns, 12" belt armour
Austria-Hungary commissioned Szent Istvan battleship of Viribus Unitis class - 23000 tons, 22 knots, 12x12" guns (10 broadside), 10.5" belt armour
USN commissioned Oregon battleship of South Caroline class - 26500 tons, 21 knots, 10x12" guns, 12" belt armour
Personal log - the 31th of July 1914
I get the last offer for new cruiser of Poverto project. I need to do final decision during August.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 12, 2019 5:54:24 GMT -6
I thought BCs can only go above 12 in of belt if they are 31 knots or faster. Was that changed? They can go to 12.5" belt armour. But I do not know exactly rules. Certainly later (in 30s) it is again lowered to 12".
|
|