|
Post by dorn on Mar 3, 2020 11:34:22 GMT -6
War with France - No sea battles until this one - Its amazing, all done by aircraft What is the year?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 3, 2020 12:07:39 GMT -6
War with France - No sea battles until this one - Its amazing, all done by aircraft What is the year? July 1940 - War is continuing but I have a good points lead. This is the third war, my second was with Italy. I polished them off in two months.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 3, 2020 13:08:59 GMT -6
Final design of new Dresden class light cruiserI was thinking about deleting X turret however or have only 50 mm belt however such savings would be minimal and decrease cruiser ability for different worse if needed. Her AA guns are moderate as it is not expected to be under severe air attack. The class will have one scout plane in hangar and catapult.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 3, 2020 15:06:27 GMT -6
Final design of new Dresden class light cruiserI was thinking about deleting X turret however or have only 50 mm belt however such savings would be minimal and decrease cruiser ability for different worse if needed. Her AA guns are moderate as it is not expected to be under severe air attack. The class will have one scout plane in hangar and catapult. It is a very nice design. I would reduce the belt with inclined. I would increase the rnds per gun to at least 155 or more. This ship is on the high seas with no logistics train so it needs as much ammunition as possible. Good design. The General Board approves.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 3, 2020 15:52:56 GMT -6
May 1932
Tension with is USA is very high, it seems that war will be uninvitable. All Nassau class battleships are commissioned, Graf Zeppelin carrier will be commissioned next month and warships being refitted for coming war. As preparation for war with USA, 12 minesweepers are in construction as 12 large corvettes. Another 4 Dresden class cruisers are under construction with other 3 will be laid down. However it seems important to start building new large carrier.
There are several options for that carrier design.
Common features: 36000 tons TDS level 3 8x2x10.2 cm DP guns 29 knots 50 mm belt armour, 50 mm deck armour, conning tower has 152 mm of armour
Variant A - heavily protected - 48 aircrafts, 152 mm armoured deck, 50 mm hangar sides Variant B - heavy protected - 60 aircrafts, 126 mm armoured deck, 38 mm hangar sides Variant C - medium protected - 72 aircrafts, 102 mm armoured deck, 38 mm hangar sides Variant D - lightly protected - 84 aircrafts, 76 mm armoured deck, 38 mm hangar sides Variant E - hangar unprotected - 96 aircrafts, no armoured deck and hangar sides, speed 31 knots, hangar deck increased to 102 mm
If such carrier will fight USN carriers, it is expected that it can be heavily outnumbered as expected USN carrier force will have: fleet carriers - 170 - 200 aircrafts light carriers - 113 aircrafts at least
Our carriers: fleet carrier Graf Zeppelin: 48 a/c - lightly armoured hangar deck (63 mm) light carrier Ausonia: 20 a/c - no protection
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 3, 2020 15:57:45 GMT -6
May 1932Tension with is USA is very high, it seems that war will be uninvitable. All Nassau class battleships are commissioned, Graf Zeppelin carrier will be commissioned next month and warships being refitted for coming war. As preparation for war with USA, 12 minesweepers are in construction as 12 large corvettes. Another 4 Dresden class cruisers are under construction with other 3 will be laid down. However it seems important to start building new large carrier. There are several options for that carrier design. Common features: 36000 tons TDS level 3 8x2x10.2 cm DP guns 29 knots 50 mm belt armour, 50 mm deck armour, conning tower has 152 mm of armour Variant A - heavily protected - 48 aircrafts, 152 mm armoured deck, 50 mm hangar sides Variant B - heavy protected - 60 aircrafts, 126 mm armoured deck, 38 mm hangar sides Variant C - medium protected - 72 aircrafts, 102 mm armoured deck, 38 mm hangar sides Variant D - lightly protected - 84 aircrafts, 76 mm armoured deck, 38 mm hangar sides Variant E - hangar unprotected - 96 aircrafts, no armoured deck and hangar sides, speed 31 knots, hangar deck increased to 102 mm It really depends on where you will be fighting. If you are in the North Sea, I would go with Variant C or D. An aircraft carrier is a mobile air field, try to stay within range of land based bombers, very effective for me at least.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 3, 2020 16:13:27 GMT -6
This is something I really do not know. It is tough decision but you are right, variant A seems too low on air power, variants C and D seems interesting.
I am a little worried about penetration of bombs as it seems quite high in game but I will try and than I can see if armour can help. Certainly in middle of 30s armoured deck of 3"-4" should protect against most common bombs. My dive bomber will has 600 lb semi-armour piercing bomb and the prototype will have 800 lb. 4" deck armour should be enough to protect against such bombs and even 3" armour should have reasonable chance to defend against such bombs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 3, 2020 18:01:32 GMT -6
This is something I really do not know. It is tough decision but you are right, variant A seems too low on air power, variants C and D seems interesting. I am a little worried about penetration of bombs as it seems quite high in game but I will try and than I can see if armour can help. Certainly in middle of 30s armoured deck of 3"-4" should protect against most common bombs. My dive bomber will has 600 lb semi-armour piercing bomb and the prototype will have 800 lb. 4" deck armour should be enough to protect against such bombs and even 3" armour should have reasonable chance to defend against such bombs. I could quote chapter and verse about carrier losses and the specifications for each carrier lost and try to equate this historical information to the game. I believe it would be a waste of time. I would suggest that you built one of the specifications that you feel is good for the situation, then test it in combat. After that, build the other, and do the same. Compare the results and make a decision. Personally, You should use both the specifications that you choose, and over time migrate from one to the other. This is the way the Navy does it. It develops alternatives, tests them, then makes their choice. Remember that ships are a balance of all factors.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Mar 4, 2020 1:41:56 GMT -6
Just to add the Avro Manchester was also designed for dive-bombing as well as catapult launch. To the best of my knowledge, this extended to the 4-engined Lancaster as well, although not used in such a role. The structural strength did allow the aircraft to be pushed through more stressful manoeuvres to escape in combat. Also oldpop2000, back on page 2 you commented about speed and reliability. In game "speed" denotes lighter, less reliable engine fittings than normal, whereas "reliability" includes extra redundancy. As a result, a unit built with "speed" engines will have less tonnage dedicated to the engines than the same design with "reliable" engines.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 4, 2020 9:10:48 GMT -6
Just to add the Avro Manchester was also designed for dive-bombing as well as catapult launch. To the best of my knowledge, this extended to the 4-engined Lancaster as well, although not used in such a role. The structural strength did allow the aircraft to be pushed through more stressful manoeuvres to escape in combat. Also oldpop2000, back on page 2 you commented about speed and reliability. In game "speed" denotes lighter, less reliable engine fittings than normal, whereas "reliability" includes extra redundancy. As a result, a unit built with "speed" engines will have less tonnage dedicated to the engines than the same design with "reliable" engines. I noticed the difference the other day during a game. I checked on the change in tonnage difference. There are a lot of bombers that could glide bomb at 30 degrees, the Manchester was one of them. It puts less stress on the structure and in fact, is safer against heavy AA fire. The angle can provide some difficulty for gunners. It could also drop torpedoes. It was not very successful due to the poor engine, the RR Vulture.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 6, 2020 15:13:18 GMT -6
Finally version of carrier design is:
displacement: 36000 tons speed: 29 knots 1" deck and belt armour over magazines, 0.5" over machinery 6" flight deck armour, 0.5" hangar sides armour air complement: 84 aircraft
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 6, 2020 15:34:42 GMT -6
Finally version of carrier design is: displacement: 36000 tons speed: 29 knots 1" deck and belt armour over magazines, 0.5" over machinery 6" flight deck armour, 0.5" hangar sides armour air complement: 84 aircraft The game unfortunately doesn't represent this but that 6 inch of flight deck armor is thick because of the weight at that height will increase the center of gravity and will cause the metacentric height to change. The only solution is to lower the hangar bay height which then causes aircraft height restrictions plus might eliminate the storage of aircraft parts and spares on the hangar ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 6, 2020 15:40:13 GMT -6
Finally version of carrier design is: displacement: 36000 tons speed: 29 knots 1" deck and belt armour over magazines, 0.5" over machinery 6" flight deck armour, 0.5" hangar sides armour air complement: 84 aircraft The game unfortunately doesn't represent this but that 6 inch of flight deck armor is thick because of the weight at that height will increase the center of gravity and she will have a nasty roll. You are right, it is 9293 tons out of 36000 tons displacement, quite a lot as airplanes, conning tower, funnel etc. and it is probably more than half of the weight.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 6, 2020 16:32:26 GMT -6
The game unfortunately doesn't represent this but that 6 inch of flight deck armor is thick because of the weight at that height will increase the center of gravity and she will have a nasty roll. You are right, it is 9293 tons out of 36000 tons displacement, quite a lot as airplanes, conning tower, funnel etc. and it is probably more than half of the weight. I would reduce it to 3 in. You can try leaving the hangar armor at .5 in. It might be nice to have another knot or two of speed. Do you have catapults yet?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 6, 2020 16:48:28 GMT -6
Here is brief extract from Navweaps:
The armor protection for the Illustrious class was as follows:
The Flight Deck over the hangar consisted of structurally worked 120 lbs. NC armor (3 inches), which was considered proof against 6 inch (100 lbs. projectiles) plunging fire below 23,000 yards and 500 lbs. SAP bombs dropped from 7,000 feet. The hangar sides were 180 lbs. C armor (4.5 inches) and the hangar bulkheads were of 80 lbs. NC plating. This was considered adequate to protect against 6 inch gun fire at ranges over 7,000 yards.
The armor protection for the magazines was 180 lbs. C armor on the ship's side and 120 and 100 lbs. NC armor on the hangar deck.
The side protection system was design to withstand a 750 lbs. TNT contact charge and consisted of an air-liquid-air "sandwich" system with a depth of 14 feet and ran between stations 61 and 121, 240 feet in all, and continuous from outer bottom to 9 inches above the main deck.
The Indomitable class had similar protection except that the hangar side protection was reduced from 180 lbs. to 60 lbs. C armor (1.5 inches).
The protection in Implacable and Indefatigable was also similar to the Illustrious class except that the hangar side and end protection was reduced to 60 lbs. NC while the lower hangar deck (top of citadel) was 60 to 100 lbs. NC armor. Protection to the steering gear was 120 lbs. NC. As a result of trials on Job 74 a protective bulkhead of 55 lbs. was fitted in lieu of the 60 lbs. bulkhead on previous ships.
It should be understood that of the eight hits suffered by HMS Illustrious off Malta and the further two hits inflicted while at Malta, only one struck the armored box and that one penetrated the 3 inch deck armor and exploded in the hangar, causing serious damage to the forward lift and a bad fire which destroyed several aircraft. According to D.K. Brown RCNC, writing about the damage in his Warship Issue No. 28 "Attack and Defence" article:
"It is interesting to note that the armoured hangar, provided at such great expense, proved of no value . . . The ship was also lucky in that several hits were close together so that the later ones added little to the earlier damage. On the other hand, to withstand 8 hits and 2 near misses from 500 kg bombs was a great achievement. Her designer, W.A.D. Forbes, Captain Boyd and the crew all had reason for pride in their work."
The armored decks of these carriers were intended to resist 500 lbs. bombs, not the 500 kg (1,100 lbs.) bombs that the Germans used during these attacks. The failure of the armored deck on HMS Illustrious to resist the much larger bomb is thus not so surprising.
|
|