|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 24, 2015 14:21:08 GMT -6
Something to attempt in the new DesignShip 2, substitute 10in 45 cal. guns for the 12in and see how the weight decreases. Once you've done that, now increase the armor. Try upgrading the turrets first. Try testing it in combat, because in point of fact, Fisher wanted the 10in guns due to weight, ROF and accuracy. They also were better match to the range finders and fire control system.
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 13, 2015 18:00:11 GMT -6
Admiral Fisher's theory of the battlecruiser was that its high speed would permit it to hold open the range and its all-big-gun battery would let it smash enemy ships to bits with accurate long-range fire. Presumably holding open the range would stop or limit the enemy's return fire, making armor almost superfluous. This theory was correct - until other nations built all-big-gun ships too. At that point, superior speed 'only' lets you control the range and disengage as needed but armor lets you take hits and keep going.
Another use for battlecruisers was to form the core of the scouting force of the battle-fleet. To force your way into close sighting range and get accurate intelligence on enemy strength and movements you needed superior strength - if the enemy had DDs, bring CLs. If he had CLs, use CAs. And if he had CAs - then you needed the battlecruisers. Both Germany and Britain used BCs in this way.
Hunting down raiding CAs with battlecruisers is an obvious and effective use for them (though I'd have loved to see Admiral Tryon attempt the reverse against Goeben). It was so obvious and effective a tactic that nations mostly stopped building CAs from 1905 until the 1920s, and what was called a CA then was a dreadnought-inspired all-one-caliber-gun ship and not a classic armored cruiser (the early 'treaty' CAs were all very thin-skinned). Battlecruisers of course disappeared into the 'fast battleship' category as naval treaties ended big battle-fleets and made capital ships too valuable to risk lightly. The only battlecruisers built after WW1 (that I know of) were the Scharnhorsts and the Alaskas - both very special cases and neither very successful.
Japan used armored cruisers as part of the line of battle at Tsushima from necessity, not choice. Japan did have some excellent CAs, and used them to make up for their lack of battleships. For most nations (the US, France and Japan) CAs were intended to be raiders; British CAs were intended to fight those raiders. There is no case I know of for the US, Britain or France to use a CA in the line of battle (at least not after 1900). Italy... changed naval doctrine a lot, and the line between CAs and fast, weak Bs is somewhat blurred for Italy. As with Japan, she might have used CAs with Bs, but not in a battle-line of dreadnoughts.
|
|
|
Post by dickturpin on Nov 17, 2015 16:33:27 GMT -6
Admiral Fisher's theory of the battlecruiser was that its high speed would permit it to hold open the range and its all-big-gun battery would let it smash enemy ships to bits with accurate long-range fire. Presumably holding open the range would stop or limit the enemy's return fire, making armor almost superfluous. This theory was correct - until other nations built all-big-gun ships too. At that point, superior speed 'only' lets you control the range and disengage as needed but armor lets you take hits and keep going. It could be argued that this analysis is rather too simplistic. In the period in question, maximum gun range was rather less important than the range at which hits would reasonably be expected to be obtained. Increasing the number of heavy barrels was an advantage with salvo firing and eliminating the medium and intermediate calibre batteries enhanced the observation of fall of shot. Maximum gun range was actually dependent upon the elevation allowed by the mounts. The British 12" Mk X with 2 crh shells had a maximum elevation of 13.5° for maximum range of circa 16,500 yds. Most of the German 8" cruisers had mountings that allowed 30° elevation and could out range the British 12" Mk X.
Armour penetration decreases with increased range so the range at which a warship design is expected to fight will not unreasonably establish the maximum thickness of armour that should be incorporated. An additional factor with increasing the range is that the proportion of hits on horizontal surfaces increase. In the period in question, medium armour is also important as close range encounters will most likely be heavily influenced by medium and intermediate guns, as they are able to take advantage of their enhanced rates of fire. At long range, the effectiveness of armour penetrating shells decrease (as they are unable to penetrate the better protected areas of the ship) and high explosive shells and fragments from burst AP shells become the more significant threat. A further factor with long range fire is that shells are more likely to impact armour at oblique angles and face hardened steel armour has a propensity to break up period shells that impact at said angles. Japan used armored cruisers as part of the line of battle at Tsushima from necessity, not choice. Japan did have some excellent CAs, and used them to make up for their lack of battleships. For most nations (the US, France and Japan) CAs were intended to be raiders; British CAs were intended to fight those raiders. There is no case I know of for the US, Britain or France to use a CA in the line of battle (at least not after 1900). Italy... changed naval doctrine a lot, and the line between CAs and fast, weak Bs is somewhat blurred for Italy. As with Japan, she might have used CAs with Bs, but not in a battle-line of dreadnoughts. A useful characteristic to look for when considering the proposed role of cruisers is the armament carried. A raider is designed to attack unarmoured merchant ships and thus is ideally armed with medium guns with a rapid rate of fire. Ships with intermediate or heavy calibre guns are designed to fight armoured opponents; such guns are not especially effective against unarmoured ships. A successful raider will avoid confrontation with well armed and armoured opponents and will instead be given the speed to evade them.
The term Armoured Cruiser in the context of this thread appears to relate to those having face hardened Krupp Cemented armour (e.g. Cressy class on). These ships would not feature in any role before 1900 as they were still under construction at this time. The earlier large First Class Cruisers were intended for commerce protection but they did not have armoured sides and were instead protected by armoured decks and coal bunkers.
|
|