|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 19, 2019 13:50:27 GMT -6
Well, I think the whole, “my stick has to be bigger” mentality is lost on you. When one nation comes out with something better, the other nations escalate. You’d see dock sizes for 150k ton vessels in no time. Remember that the Japanese were going to build the A-150 in 1946. That would likely have happened 5 years sooner if not for the Washington naval treaty. And like I said, I was surprised to learn the Japanese had already planned for a battleship successor to the A-150 that would make the Yamato class look like a toy. So think what you want, history’s progress chart proves otherwise. Paper plans are not history's progress chart. I can easily draw up plans for a multi-million-ton, 40 knot, super-duper-battle-carrier-cruiser with 24 36 inch guns and 3 feet of belt armor with 2 feet of deck, and an airwing of 1000 aircraft and forty torpedoes on each broadside. The question is if I can actually build it. History's progress chart is ships actually laid down, or better yet, completed. It doesn't matter how much of a "my stick is bigger" mentality you have, there are physical limits on how big your stick can be with a given economy and level of technology.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 19, 2019 15:36:21 GMT -6
Well, I think the whole, “my stick has to be bigger” mentality is lost on you. When one nation comes out with something better, the other nations escalate. You’d see dock sizes for 150k ton vessels in no time. Remember that the Japanese were going to build the A-150 in 1946. That would likely have happened 5 years sooner if not for the Washington naval treaty. And like I said, I was surprised to learn the Japanese had already planned for a battleship successor to the A-150 that would make the Yamato class look like a toy. So think what you want, history’s progress chart proves otherwise. Paper plans are not history's progress chart. I can easily draw up plans for a multi-million-ton, 40 knot, super-duper-battle-carrier-cruiser with 24 36 inch guns and 3 feet of belt armor with 2 feet of deck, and an airwing of 1000 aircraft and forty torpedoes on each broadside. The question is if I can actually build it. History's progress chart is ships actually laid down, or better yet, completed. It doesn't matter how much of a "my stick is bigger" mentality you have, there are physical limits on how big your stick can be with a given economy and level of technology. Wrong again. Rtw2 is NOT an historical sim. It is a naval sandbox game complete with alternative history. If you can’t wrap your head around how naval aviation may never have happened the way it did had it not been for the Washington naval treaty, then I can’t help you. Perhaps try stepping outside that box you put yourself inside of and see the big picture? And yes, the super-duper-battle-cattier-cruiser can absolutely be built. Germany tossed the plans of the h-41 in favor of the h-44. They didn’t think they could build it, they knew they could which is why they went ahead and commissioned complete plans to proceed to keel laying. Course ww2 happened. But that’s what’s so good about rtw2. Ww2 didn’t have to happen for the Germans. So now they get to build the h-44. How bout them apples?
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 19, 2019 16:27:32 GMT -6
If you could build ships with X" armor and Y" deck then the game needs to add weapons to break through them.
The discussion in this thread seems to focus on just the defense side of the arms race. The game does have defense and weapon techs from history's arms race.
You would also need to add weapons to break through and sink such a ship since they >WOULD< also be developed.
Id have to say Id rather not see this doubling in the game as the vanilla has the matching weapons development this suggestion >MUST< have come with it.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 19, 2019 16:38:15 GMT -6
20 inch guns break thru 20 inch belt. A 20 inch belt bb would run around 120k tons or more if built correctly.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Oct 19, 2019 16:56:42 GMT -6
Wrong again. Rtw2 is NOT an historical sim. It is a naval sandbox game complete with alternative history. If you can’t wrap your head around how naval aviation may never have happened the way it did had it not been for the Washington naval treaty, then I can’t help you. One issue here is the feedback loop of "Aircraft danger = larger ships". The H-44 design got to the size it did as a direct result of the need to protect it from aerial bombs and torpedoes. If we envision a scenario where those aren't a threat but you want a design capable of dominating in surface combat, you probably end up with something like the H-39 or 41. I'm sorry, but can you provide your source for the inevitability of the H-44 being built? Absolutely everything I've read indicates that it was not seriously considered and was simply the end result of someone in 1943 asking "How large would a ship have to be to essentially be immune to all current weapons?".
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 19, 2019 18:43:50 GMT -6
Yeah, it's in the german navy book Im reading. Give me a few hours maybe a day and I'll post you the direct quote with page number about what he says about the H-41 design being completely tossed into the garbage in favor of the larger H-42,43,44 designs.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 20, 2019 7:53:02 GMT -6
Id want so see matching armaments not just naval guns but the super bombs like "Tall boy" being implemented to penetrate thicker deck armor.
I think this sort of things is more for a mod with matching defense-offense changes. The vanilla game has the defense-offense match from the real world with its own take away that they can always make a bigger bomb.
To point out the dates 1945 - 1955 are the early nuclear age so we should be able to nuke a super sized BB.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 20, 2019 8:07:02 GMT -6
Yeah, it's in the german navy book Im reading. Give me a few hours maybe a day and I'll post you the direct quote with page number about what he says about the H-41 design being completely tossed into the garbage in favor of the larger H-42,43,44 designs. Here is a link to a site that I have used as reference and cross-checked, it is reasonably accurate - www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/schlachtschiffh/history.htmlAccording to "Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze Page 294, the real issue was fuel supply. The private shipyards could have built the ships, but the fuel supply was the issue. We have the Luftwaffe expanding, needing aviation fuel, there was domestic necessities. Heating-oil needs were expected to rise from 1.4 million tons per annum in 1936 to 6 million tons by 1947. Tooze states that for 12 months of unlimited operations, the Kriegsmarine would need to build 9.6 million cubic meters of protected storage capacity. Historically after the Sudenten emergency, there was a cash flow problem and squeeze on its foreign exchange account. So, there was no possibility of building this fleet and it was cancelled in 1941 to build more U-boats. Cost of a U-boat was between 2-4 million Reichsmark per boat compared to 200 million for a Bismarck class battleship. (same source) www.kbismarck.com/warship-construction-cost.html
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 20, 2019 18:32:27 GMT -6
I'm sorry, but can you provide your source for the inevitability of the H-44 being built? Absolutely everything I've read indicates that it was not seriously considered and was simply the end result of someone in 1943 asking "How large would a ship have to be to essentially be immune to all current weapons?". We all know the H-41+ designs never were built because Germany needed the steel for tank production. So that's a moot point. But what I'm saying is that the H-41 design was passed up and blueprints drawn for the successor designs of H-42-44. Japan was actually further along with speculation they actually built and then destroyed the 20 inch gun in Kure, Japan that had been designed for the already budgeted A-150 in 1942 that was to begin construction after the 4th Yamato class was built upon which the successor to the A-150 was already planned. That last part was a shocker to me. Here's the quote in the book, German Warships of the Second World War by H.T. Lenton, p.27, " The H-41 design was for a battleship of 64,000 tons, but this was soon abandoned for the undermentioned successors and more ambitious projects: H-42, H-43, H-44." You appear to be at odds with me on my 'opinion' that RTW2 is not an historical sim and thus allows for the what if's in game play, and in that vein, I'm trying to explain that these battleships were planned, blueprinted, budgeted in some respects, and ultimately not built due to the constrictions of wartime resources. But had Pearl and Midway never happened, and Japan built the A-150, the United States would have responded with a Battleship likely bigger than the H-43 design. This would have led to an all around battleship escalation. And when I say history's progress chart proves this, I'm absolutely right. The Soviet Union lost the cold war because they couldn't keep pace with how the USA was outspending them on technological advances for war machine supremacy, the SAME concept used in 'my battleships has got to be bigger' that led to the bigger belts and bigger guns of battleship design for forty+ years.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 20, 2019 19:47:56 GMT -6
I won't go down the virtual historical path of what would have happened without Pearl Harbor or Midway, that will open up a can, a very large can, of worms. The Japanese had one overriding problem that guided all their building and operations. NO FUEL. One of the reasons for the Southern Operation was to secure fuel from SE Asia. The problem was getting the fuel from Borneo to Japan. Those refineries in Borneo supplied 35% of the Japanese refined petroleum products. One of the reasons for the Japanese fleet to be at Singapore in 1944, was to be stationed near Balikpapan where the fuel was. There were also oil fields and refineries on Java. There were refineries and oil fields on Sumatra, all under Japanese control. However, the Japanese battlefleet was stationed primarily at Hashirajima, in Japan with one Yamato class in Truk. Now, a Yamato class battleship, at cruising speed of 16 knots uses about 14 tons of fuel per hour. However, at battle speed, which how the ships would have operated in combat, They would use five times that amount per hour.
So, with these figures, would the Japanese have honestly built those super-Yamato's. Many of the Admiral of the IJN were strongly against the Yamato's. And that was in peacetime.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Oct 21, 2019 5:59:31 GMT -6
You appear to be at odds with me on my 'opinion' that RTW2 is not an historical sim and thus allows for the what if's in game play Not at all. As I said earlier, I don't have any problem with the idea of increasing the maximum displacement, but as William said, doing so brings with it alot more than just making the available weight larger. At this stage in RtW2, when some game elements simply aren't in place yet, I feel perfectly content putting that tonnage increase to the side for the foreseeable future. A nitpick, the H-39's construction was halted because the war broke out, and Germany knew (or rather depended on) it being a short war and that even if they tried they wouldn't get them into service during the war. For the same reason, the 41's were planned as a post-war construction problem. I think the real issue we're having here is how we each define "planned", "designed" and similar words. For me, those words do not intrinsically imply any significant level of commitment to a project beyond what they were themselves. The Tillman Battleships were designed and studied, as were the later H-designs, along with the crazier ideas such as the iceberg carrier and the utterly baffling late-1910's/early-20's Japanese study on a 500,000t battleship carrying 100 41cm guns. So as to your quote, I feel it lays an assumed narrative beyond what actually happened: the German naval design officers came up with plans for a ship, and when those plans were finished they came up with plans for another. I think it's arguable the lesson you could take from the Cold War. I feel that as costs and sizes got more exorbitant, the harder people would begin to look for alternative solutions to the "battleship problem". Of course, the Soviet Union couldn't quite do this, since their "problem" was being a world superpower.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Oct 21, 2019 7:53:04 GMT -6
I think it's arguable the lesson(...) Look, I really don't mean this as an ad hominem, as I have zero issue with dizzy, however if someone consistently uses the "I'm absolutely right" tone, I'd take it as an end of discussion. It was not meant to be a "discussion" in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2019 8:09:06 GMT -6
Gentlemen:
I think William has ended this discussion, there will be no raising of the limits of displacement so let's stop before we get really personnel about this. The key to why these monster battleships were not built was one phrase - LACK OF RESOURCES. This means iron ore, fuel, rubber, copper and finances. None of the Axis nations had sufficient quantities of these resources to build these warships. Let's leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 21, 2019 14:24:51 GMT -6
I think it's arguable the lesson(...) Look, I really don't mean this as an ad hominem, as I have zero issue with dizzy, however if someone consistently uses the "I'm absolutely right" tone, I'd take it as an end of discussion. It was not meant to be a "discussion" in the first place. [ Nah. Others have made good arguments against me. I’m only right in the sense that I believe in my opinion. It’d be nice if oldpop2000 would stop posting in this thread. He’s killed this idea better than anyone. Pouring cold water on my musings, he’s completely correct in that these ships would likely have been absolutely unaffordable in both resources and naval budget. However, my argument is more what if because in rtw2 japan could have been allied to the USA and got its oil, Pearl and midway never happened, the Germans never gotten into ww2, so from my looking glass, I see another realm entirely.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 21, 2019 14:32:14 GMT -6
I'll have to say no to a 180Kton limit, if for no other reason than scaling & a myriad of related issues - not just ship size scaling, but in guns and many other systems...what are realistic stats/performance figures for a 24"/L50 gun, as just one example? Also, that means new aircraft designs would need to be developed carrying super-heavy weapons to counter them, etc...etc...its a morass we frankly don't want to sink into. Okay, what about 120k tons? Aircraft could still sink these ships, 20 inch guns were planned for those vessels, and its likely from the noise on the other side of the fence that anything larger would simply not have been able to be built affordably and in the time frame of a 1955 cut off. At the very least, bump it to 100k tons!!! For the love of the 8x2 20 inch gun configuration, I beg of you!!!
|
|