|
Post by brygun on May 4, 2020 13:35:28 GMT -6
I wanted to run a suggestion by the forum members. I would like to see a concept ship design capability in the design ship program in the game. You could call the ship anything, like flight deck cruiser, build it and then add it to a theoretical fleet and use it in fleet exercises for testing. It would never be actually built, it would just be conceptual like the Naval War College games and the General Board. I would like to hear ideas, before I put the idea into the suggestion forum. Thanks I think that is a good idea. It shouldn't be to hard to code. Simplest to allow a "paper exercise". It wouldn't add to ship experience as the sailors aren't there, just a few officers in Admiralty Hall. In real life they certainly could draw up parameters for theoretical ships. Given to the wargaming staff they could, or even should, run sample battles to see how they handle the wargame simulaiton. To code in addition to the existing "fleet exercise" provide a button for "paper exercise". In this you can pull up any ship design even those that haven't had the research money devoted to them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 4, 2020 13:39:05 GMT -6
I wanted to run a suggestion by the forum members. I would like to see a concept ship design capability in the design ship program in the game. You could call the ship anything, like flight deck cruiser, build it and then add it to a theoretical fleet and use it in fleet exercises for testing. It would never be actually built, it would just be conceptual like the Naval War College games and the General Board. I would like to hear ideas, before I put the idea into the suggestion forum. Thanks I think that is a good idea. It shouldn't be to hard to code. Simplest to allow a "paper exercise". It wouldn't add to ship experience as the sailors aren't there, just a few officers in Admiralty Hall. In real life they certainly could draw up parameters for theoretical ships. Given to the wargaming staff they could, or even should, run sample battles to see how they handle the wargame simulaiton. To code in addition to the existing "fleet exercise" provide a button for "paper exercise". In this you can pull up any ship design even those that haven't had the research money devoted to them. Great, I appreciate you taking the time to tell me. I will wait for possibly more opinions before I launch the suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 4, 2020 13:47:17 GMT -6
Here's one for the experimental designs. A Torpedo Monitor inspired by the Thunderchild from War of the Worlds. Strategic context is its mid 1920s. My Germany just finished a war of year and half with the USA with the fleets in the Caribbean where is German's oil source of the Antilles. German's battle line has weakened by losses of several always trading for 2 or 3 times that in enemy battleships. We now have all of 6 BB, 1 BC and 8 B still float. Understandable the Kaiser has called for us to build 3 battleships. Now German has the first carrier in the world the CVL Frankenstien. Now we have finished five (5) more CVL, a mix of 2 conversions and 3 fresh builds. That gives us over 180 naval planes of which 120 are naval torpedo bombers. Only Russia has CVLs with intel estimating a total of 30 planes on them. Budgets are struggling. The DD force was massacred from nearly 40 to half that. The Submarines were cut down from 80 to 50. The design objectives are: = Limited expense to meet the 3 ship build instruction = Create escorts for the CVL This seems a suitable chance to experiment with a RTW2 variant of the "Thunderchild". A heavy gun forward turret to meat the B rating requirement. A moderate speed to keep size down. Armor arranged heavy on the turret and conn only to keep them working while saving weight with moderate protection from cruisers elsewhere. Secondaries selected for anti-destroyer work. Since Thunderchild was called a torpedo ram the ship does have torpedo tubes. Deck tubes aren't yet unlocked. Thoughts? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 4, 2020 13:52:53 GMT -6
Here's one for the experimental designs. A Torpedo Monitor inspired by the Thunderchild from War of the Worlds. Strategic context is its mid 1920s. My Germany just finished a war of year and half with the USA with the fleets in the Caribbean where is German's oil source of the Antilles. German's battle line has weakened by losses of several always trading for 2 or 3 times that in enemy battleships. We now have all of 6 BB, 1 BC and 8 B still float. Understandable the Kaiser has called for us to build 3 battleships. Now German has the first carrier in the world the CVL Frankenstien. Now we have finished five (5) more CVL, a mix of 2 conversions and 3 fresh builds. That gives us over 180 naval planes of which 120 are naval torpedo bombers. Only Russia has CVLs with intel estimating a total of 30 planes on them. Budgets are struggling. The DD force was massacred from nearly 40 to half that. The Submarines were cut down from 80 to 50. The design objectives are: = Limited expense to meet the 3 ship build instruction = Create escorts for the CVL This seems a suitable chance to experiment with a RTW2 variant of the "Thunderchild". A heavy gun forward turret to meat the B rating requirement. A moderate speed to keep size down. Armor arranged heavy on the turret and conn only to keep them working while saving weight with moderate protection from cruisers elsewhere. Secondaries selected for anti-destroyer work. Since Thunderchild was called a torpedo ram the ship does have torpedo tubes. Deck tubes aren't yet unlocked. Thoughts? Well, I would reduce the armor on the secondaries, turret tops and turrets considerably to gain the weight back. I don't think on a torpedo monitor you would need deck extended or belt extended. You need that extra weight reduction to gain more speed. Reduce the gun caliber to say, 10 or 11 inches and increase the rounds per gun to 150. You might consider either reducing the secondaries to 4 inch or eliminate them completely. Try to get this ship above 30 knots. It's going to need the speed to close the range to the target and get into firing position. Great design, I stole it. Here is my version of your design. Remember my game is in 1957. Note also, my design is 5,000 tons less which should reduce the cost. If I maintained the 20,000 tons I actually got 37 knots, but that was unrealistic. Remember this is a torpedo boat and as such will need speed to move toward the target, fire and get out of dodge. It should not be involved in gun fights. It might be a good convoy attack ship, it could do a lot of damage except that the torpedo tubes are below the water line.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 4, 2020 14:21:00 GMT -6
I designed a Torp Mon BC in my Russian game because it is at the year 1921. It's as close as I can get right now. I am using 9 inch guns but only a triple turret. Fire control is not up to your game and neither is the torpedo defense. However, it has a long range, colonial and will do 31. knots. It is 17,000 tons with 150 round per gun.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 4, 2020 14:44:46 GMT -6
Here is something you might like. An actual proposed 1912 design for a torpedo battleship for the US Navy
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 4, 2020 15:43:29 GMT -6
Great job on presenting debating points on it.
At the time I wanted to keep with the fleet battle line gun size of 14 or 15 inch. A 12 inch version or smaller version could be an option too.
Certainly the amount of belt armor is a debate point. Yours is 6" while mine is 8". My nominal concept is to have the same inch of armor as the gun barrels do defend against. That doesnt cover all ranges but it does a decent job in ship to ship duels. So defending from CL 6" or CA 8" guns.
On your turret armor my nominal is the turrets on gun size with turret top 1/3 plus a bit. A 14" gun with 14" front and 4.5" or 5" top armor baseline for instance. Then check against actual gun performance. The 15" guns on my original "heavy" torpedo monitor was 15"/5" armor then tweaked upward with the top armor aiming toward surviving 500 lb bombs my own planes could drop.
Secondary gun armor for me is usually at least 2.5" to be fully enclosed. This is more of role play element to keep the crews functional in bad weather or on arctic convoy duties. Going to 4" to 6" secondary armor my view at that point is making them immune to destroyer guns that would be engaging. Unarmored secondary guns do save on weight though become vulnerable to shrapnel. Pros and cons there.
The D/DE/BE of the original around 2" is about protection from splinters and relative persistence vs the fast movers that might endanger the carriers. Again pros and cons as they do add weight especially the deck armor which leads to size and cost.
Very happy to see and consider your alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 4, 2020 15:44:43 GMT -6
Here is something you might like. An actual proposed 1912 design for a torpedo battleship for the US Navy Thanks for that
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 4, 2020 16:15:22 GMT -6
Great job on presenting debating points on it. At the time I wanted to keep with the fleet battle line gun size of 14 or 15 inch. A 12 inch version or smaller version could be an option too. Certainly the amount of belt armor is a debate point. Yours is 6" while mine is 8". My nominal concept is to have the same inch of armor as the gun barrels do defend against. That doesnt cover all ranges but it does a decent job in ship to ship duels. So defending from CL 6" or CA 8" guns. On your turret armor my nominal is the turrets on gun size with turret top 1/3 plus a bit. A 14" gun with 14" front and 4.5" or 5" top armor baseline for instance. Then check against actual gun performance. The 15" guns on my original "heavy" torpedo monitor was 15"/5" armor then tweaked upward with the top armor aiming toward surviving 500 lb bombs my own planes could drop. Secondary gun armor for me is usually at least 2.5" to be fully enclosed. This is more of role play element to keep the crews functional in bad weather or on arctic convoy duties. Going to 4" to 6" secondary armor my view at that point is making them immune to destroyer guns that would be engaging. Unarmored secondary guns do save on weight though become vulnerable to shrapnel. Pros and cons there. The D/DE/BE of the original around 2" is about protection from splinters and relative persistence vs the fast movers that might endanger the carriers. Again pros and cons as they do add weight especially the deck armor which leads to size and cost. Very happy to see and consider your alternatives. First, thank you for your kind words. I will review what you have said in this post carefully. In my years of study of warship design, using actual naval documents, Norman Friedman, D.K. Brown, and warship design book dated to the beginning of the century up until about 1930, and many others, I've learned that warships are a balance of speed, firepower and protection. I've always tried to keep that balance. Another point that warship designers have to consider is cost per performance. In my world of Naval Aviation it was always a big factor. So, while torpedo battleships and cruiser are pretty interesting, a more cost effective torpedo attack ship has always been the cheaper, faster destroyer. The naval boards and defense minister's have to consider what is cost effective solutions to a problem. Many times you have make do with what you can afford and build. Anyway, we are having fun and maybe we can get others to join in and make the suggestion to the team. Note: I am currently reading Norman Friedman's British Cruisers. It is fascinating to read about the series of different cruisers who had to be adapted to trade protection, colonial deployment, and scouting. They had to eliminate torpedoes, reduce guns or do the opposite to keep the ship within the limits of the naval budget. It's a fascinating read.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 4, 2020 18:09:27 GMT -6
I have started a new game as Japan in 1920. Japan does not have the shipbuilding capacity nor the economic capacity to build big fleets. I will start with Torpedo cruisers and battleships, then march on to others. I will also be building airbases and researching new aircraft. Any suggestions on ships is welcome. I may work on destroyer leaders and others.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 4, 2020 18:23:45 GMT -6
I have started a new game as Japan in 1920. Japan does not have the shipbuilding capacity nor the economic capacity to build big fleets. I will start with Torpedo cruisers and battleships, then march on to others. I will also be building airbases and researching new aircraft. Any suggestions on ships is welcome. I may work on destroyer leaders and others. I had a lot of success with Japan using a fast torpedo destroyers and slow BB practice. The slow BB were (late game 24 knots, early game 18-20 knts) pretty robust to take damage. I tended to leave torps out of the BB in that play through but that leaving them may be something to experiment with. The torpedo destroyers had a speed and torp focus. By 900 tons they has IIRC 6 torps in 3 of 2 torp mounts; two main guns A and Y; and side guns (for slowing other DDs). It was a "Fix and flank" or "hammer and anvil" strategy. The tough gun line of B types would take punishment and draw the enemy onto a certain course. The fast DDs would sail ahead on this course then turn 90 degrees ahead of the enemy and dive in. Now if you were to add cruisers to the mix I would suggest using the CLMR or CAMR with MR meaning multi role. For a CL say 5 or 6" main guns, several 3" (early game) side batteries to shoot up enemy DDs and torpedoes. The CLAD, Cruiser Light Anti Destroyer, can be used to with the charge of the destroyers. The CLMR's presence tends to make the enemy DDs fall back out of its gun range letting your own DDs get closer. CLMRs might draw enemy B fire but that means less on the DDs. A CLAD with side or forward torp might by virtue of its mass (early game CLMR 2,100+ tons vs 500 ton starting DDs) to get into a torp launch position. The CAMR work similiar though early game might be a bit expensive to produce. 8" main guns in a single monitor turret forward with anti-destroyer 4" or 5" secondary guns with maybe a few 3" rapid fires. It might manage to survive getting closer for torp launches. A B type torpedo monitor at game start would be an interesting experiment. Knowing that you want to get to torp ranges with the enemy rather than avoiding it. One of the definite things about torpedo combat is the size of your ship makes you more likely to be by enemy torps. Smaller CLMR can evade better than a CAMR or BTRP. Come to think of it a BTRP (torpedo battleship) on approach is showing only its bow which is a small target. The forward only turret is a must for this. The rear turret wouldnt be in firing arc so not so useful. Its only when it gets close to fire its side torps that its own side is exposed. Definitely would want the BTRP to have a forward torpedo launcher (submerged) for during the charge up phase.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 4, 2020 18:33:33 GMT -6
Thinking of the BTRP or BTM (battleship torpedo monitor) to work with DDs there is an experiment to try.
While the BTM is closing with an enemy the rear turrets wouldn't have arc so we don't build them (the rear turrets that is).
The enemy roughly has two main choices. First turn sideways to have both front and rear turrets firing. This gives them double our firepower but they lose distance making it sooner we can make a torpedo launch. The enemies other choice is to turn away to avoid torpedo range in which case now only their rear turret is firing and we are equal in firepower while they are wasting their front turret.
During the BTM charge the destroyers would probably start out keeping pace so that enemy light guns can't be used. Then at the time of commmitment the DDs charge to close the distance. This would be in a tail chase though so it would take a while to close.
It would be difficult to use the previous mentioned U shape flanking by DDs with a BTM as the enemy isn't sailing parralel in either the broadside nor tail-chase scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 5, 2020 6:59:42 GMT -6
Thinking of the BTRP or BTM (battleship torpedo monitor) to work with DDs there is an experiment to try. While the BTM is closing with an enemy the rear turrets wouldn't have arc so we don't build them (the rear turrets that is). The enemy roughly has two main choices. First turn sideways to have both front and rear turrets firing. This gives them double our firepower but they lose distance making it sooner we can make a torpedo launch. The enemies other choice is to turn away to avoid torpedo range in which case now only their rear turret is firing and we are equal in firepower while they are wasting their front turret. During the BTM charge the destroyers would probably start out keeping pace so that enemy light guns can't be used. Then at the time of commmitment the DDs charge to close the distance. This would be in a tail chase though so it would take a while to close. It would be difficult to use the previous mentioned U shape flanking by DDs with a BTM as the enemy isn't sailing parralel in either the broadside nor tail-chase scenarios. The standard method of avoiding torpedoes was to comb the launches. In other words, you would turn towards the torpedoes and sail between them, giving your opponent the minimum target. Now, at Jutland, Jellicoe turned away, but generally you turn towards you enemies torpedoes. You can also do this maneuver when you are closing the range to engage, then order a turn to port or starboard about 20 to 30 degrees. You try to reduce the silhouette that your enemy has to shoot at, and then you turn to bring all your guns into engagement.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on May 5, 2020 9:42:03 GMT -6
I wanted to run a suggestion by the forum members. I would like to see a concept ship design capability in the design ship program in the game. You could call the ship anything, like flight deck cruiser, build it and then add it to a theoretical fleet and use it in fleet exercises for testing. It would never be actually built, it would just be conceptual like the Naval War College games and the General Board. I would like to hear ideas, before I put the idea into the suggestion forum. Thanks I like it. Being able to try some "wild ideas" in what is essentially an Admiralty run war-game sounds like a great idea. And plenty of precedent too, I guess - wasn't there a war-game in the US, where a carrier captain/admiral pretty much executed a Pearl Harbor attack a few years before the actual attack? I seem to remember something along that line.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 5, 2020 10:11:34 GMT -6
I wanted to run a suggestion by the forum members. I would like to see a concept ship design capability in the design ship program in the game. You could call the ship anything, like flight deck cruiser, build it and then add it to a theoretical fleet and use it in fleet exercises for testing. It would never be actually built, it would just be conceptual like the Naval War College games and the General Board. I would like to hear ideas, before I put the idea into the suggestion forum. Thanks I like it. Being able to try some "wild ideas" in what is essentially an Admiralty run war-game sounds like a great idea. And plenty of precedent too, I guess - wasn't there a war-game in the US, where a carrier captain/admiral pretty much executed a Pearl Harbor attack a few years before the actual attack? I seem to remember something along that line. Yes, and in fact, there was a Fleet Problem in 1938, If I remember, that actually duplicated the Pearl Harbor attack from the North using the Carrier Saratoga. It was Fleet Problem XIX Part V Defense of Hawaii March 25-30. King directed the Saratoga to NW of Hawaii. At 0450 the attack was launched from 100 miles and it was a devastating attack. On the 30th simulated landings were done at Lahaina on Maui covered by the Ranger and Saratoga. There was no press review and no one knew about it. It actually duplicated the IJN attack of December 7th, 1941.
|
|