|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 7, 2021 15:33:40 GMT -6
I think when we design a ship maybe we should relate when its being built and who its enemies are.
This game is circa 1911. My two biggest opponents would be France and Britain.
Britain now has 15in guns, 15 pre-dreadnoughts, 5 battlecruisers and one battleship with three building.
France has 15inch guns, one battleship with 2 building and 8 pre-dreadnoughts
Japan, my country, has 13inch guns, 1 battleship with 7 armored cruisers and 2 building.
So now the question. What would be the best armor configuration to defend against the 15inch guns of my two possible opponents and what would be the AI's range to begin firing. This assumes they can get those guns to Asia.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 7, 2021 18:27:02 GMT -6
I think that Japanese approach between wars about building superior ships to fight numerical large fleets was right for them. But the era of surface force was slowly disappearing and especially in waste space of Pacific ocean it was more visible. So at time when they fought this idea was not important as the carriers were the main force projection of the fleet.
If such idea was done at early dreadnought era, it can be the right approach. The main disadvantage is that between 1905 and 1915 (1920) the advancement in technology, princples, doctrines was so fast that can put this adea as a dream as even the msot powerful ships become obsolete quickly. However through 20s when the advacement was not so rapid and airpower still not strong enough, this could work.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 7, 2021 19:26:41 GMT -6
I think that Japanese approach between wars about building superior ships to fight numerical large fleets was right for them. But the era of surface force was slowly disappearing and especially in waste space of Pacific ocean it was more visible. So at time when they fought this idea was not important as the carriers were the main force projection of the fleet.
If such idea was done at early dreadnought era, it can be the right approach. The main disadvantage is that between 1905 and 1915 (1920) the advancement in technology, princples, doctrines was so fast that can put this adea as a dream as even the msot powerful ships become obsolete quickly. However through 20s when the advacement was not so rapid and airpower still not strong enough, this could work.
It is difficult to relate real Japanese history with the game. After the 1905 war with Russia, the Japanese were almost bankrupt. They were trying to increase their industrialization but did not have oil, iron ore, nickel, chromium, rubber, copper, manganese just to name a few of the natural resources needed for that industrialization. In fact, they lacked arable land, so they had to buy rice from China. They joined the Allies in WW1 and gained German islands. As to her fleet, she wanted to have a fleet superior in quality to the British and the US. However, the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty stymied that idea. It gets very complex after that, but I do know the history in detail. The game does not get anywhere near that historical period except in the lack of economic funding and oil availability. This is why I always win against Russia, Germany, France and Britain because I use submarines to a great extent. I use them, the way the Japanese navy did not, as raiders, not with fleet support. My surface fleet is generally able to win individual battles by hit and run, along with being a little faster. The AI does not send bigger fleet to Northeast Asia, which gives Japan a chance. As to designs, I do my best with the resources available.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Dec 7, 2021 23:57:11 GMT -6
Armor: Looks good, except for the turrets. I wouldn't feel good, going into battle with just 8" on the turret faces. I'd go with at least 12" (caliber = armor as a bare minimum)
Speed: 24 knots is an odd number. For a first gen battleship, that's very fast but for a battlecruiser it's rather slow. My own first-gen BC must be able to do 26 knots or I won't bother, as they will be too slow for their role as a BC within a few years. Then again, this started out as a BB, so if it's intended role is that of a BB, 24 knots is very good and will make the ship somewhat future-prove.
Secondary/Tertiary Battery: A bit weak, numerically. What quality 5" guns do you have? If they are equal (i.e. not Q -1), I'd probably go with a mixed 5/4" battery like 12 x 5" and 12 x 4". This gives your ship more barrels to shoot at those pesky DDs (and also a bit of meta-gaming with the idea of turning the 4" into DP guns later on)
Suggestions (I restored an old Japan game. It's 1909 but it's also at 60% research rate, so should be somewhat similar to yours): -Add a 12 x 4" tertiary battery (single mounts) -Reduce the secondary battery from 6 to 5" (assuming you have 5" Q0 guns) -Reduce TT to 4" -Increase turret armor to 12" -Increase displacement to ~23,500 tons --> cost (in my game) is around 82,800
Optional: -Keep the 6" secondary battery -Increase belt armor to 12.5 inches, so the ship is classed as a BB -Increase displacement to ~24,500 tons --> cost (in my game) is around 86.700
Obviously, all that stuff will take displacement and money - the latter a bit of a problem for Japan, I get that.
Edit: Didn't realize there was another page in the thread when posting, lol. Ok, you're facing 15" guns? Well, you're screwed, plain an simple.
A tactic that can work in game - and I have to stress the IN GAME part - is going with weakly armed, heavily armored BBs, designed essentially as a punching ball. Their mission would be to be there and scream at the enemy: Look over here, here I am, shoot me! Meanwhile, build lots and lots of DDs with an emphasis on torps as the actual means of taking out the enemy battle line.
Basically, your BBs are the Northern Force at the battle of Leyte Gulf and your DDs are the Center Force.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Dec 8, 2021 0:19:30 GMT -6
Something along the lines of this: But this is a design, build specifically for that one mission and I'm not sure that's a good use for the money it costs - as I said, you're pretty much screwed. Hm, if you play in Captain's mode, you could go with the original design, keep it at long range (you easily have to speed to dictate range), so the enemy (hopefully) won't hit you and distract him while your DDs rush in to deliver their fish. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Dec 8, 2021 11:55:48 GMT -6
But this is a design, build specifically for that one mission and I'm not sure that's a good use for the money it costs - as I said, you're pretty much screwed. Hm, if you play in Captain's mode, you could go with the original design, keep it at long range (you easily have to speed to dictate range), so the enemy (hopefully) won't hit you and distract him while your DDs rush in to deliver their fish. Whilst a good design in general, there is currently a bug whereby tertiary guns are referencing secondary guns for ammunition supply, meaning you'd have 100 rounds per 4" gun...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 9, 2021 9:24:53 GMT -6
I thought I would put together a representative turret face armor list. Please add to it, and maybe we can add the main guns on each ship. It might help me to get a feel on my ship designs.
Kongo's - 9 inches Nagato's - 14inch Yamato - 25.6Inch Ise - 12inch Fuso- 12inch Bismarck - 14.17inch KG V - 12.75 USS Washington - 16inch
|
|
|
Post by microscop on Dec 9, 2021 10:26:27 GMT -6
Nagato had 12 inch turret face. After refit had 18 inch turret face because it got Tosa's turrets. KGV was funny because it had almost no turret face but alot of roof proportionally. You were probably more likely to hit a gun barrel or turret roof than turret face. It's also important if the turret face flat angled, the value for nagato you gave is actually effective thicnkess including angling.
In game around 1920s i like to make turret immune at 10 km which actually is 12km or so because penetration is -/+ 20% or so. Usually this means 18 inch turret face.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Dec 9, 2021 10:38:39 GMT -6
I've never understood the inclination to make turret armor stronger than belt armor. I'd much rather bring my ship home with every main gun turret demolished than not get home at all.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 9, 2021 10:51:57 GMT -6
I've never understood the inclination to make turret armor stronger than belt armor. I'd much rather bring my ship home with every main gun turret demolished than not get home at all. In my research, it was stated that the turret face is the part of the turret that is facing the enemy during gun battles especially broadsides, so it had to be the heaviest to protect the gun crew and keep the turret operation. That went out the window, with the advent of dive bombers with 2000 lbs.. AP bombs. This is an answer from a former docent on one the battleship: Weight. Any armored vehicle, from a tank to a battleship, is a compromise of three things: Armor, Firepower, and Mobility. Designers are given a budget, not a monetary one (in this case) but a weight budget. The heavier something gets the less mobile it is. The compromise is between the weight of armor and the weight of the guns. and the weight of both those together against mobility. The heavier the vehicle the slower and less maneuverable. Once the balance between those has been reached then how does the design distribute the weight between firepower and armor. Heavier firepower, generally means lighter armor. Armor is therefore thickest on the most vital areas of the ship. The Armor belt or box, protects the vital machinery to keep the ship moving and fighting. The most vulnerable places are therefore the Bridge, and the Gun houses, followed by the engine room and machine areas. Knock out the guns and you’ve rendered the ship useless. As you point out though the magazines are not as heavily armored. However, they are located strategically. They are deep within the armored box of the ship and below the waterline. The reasoning is defense in depth. It would take a lot of hits to get to the magazines. Likewise below the waterline is much harder to hit. Lastly, the magazines are designed to vent explosions up and away from the rest of the ship. Tank ammo storage does the same. The armor is designed to protect the crew. This principle is very old. If you look at the powder magazines at old forts, the walls are very thick but the roof is usually thin and covered with wood. The idea being that explosions take the path of least resistance. Of course that leaves you vulnerable to a direct hit in that spot. One other thing I’d like to point out. In the ageless war between projectile and armor, the projectile always wins. Today, emphasis is placed on mobility. Being difficult to hit is weightless armor. Most warships are very lightly armored, because it simply isn’t worth the extra weight. All the emphasis is on mobility and projecting firepower as far from the ship as possible
|
|
|
Post by christian on Dec 13, 2021 5:20:54 GMT -6
I've never understood the inclination to make turret armor stronger than belt armor. I'd much rather bring my ship home with every main gun turret demolished than not get home at all. Because belt armor is easier and lighter to make adequate strenght with sloped deck scheme and most lategame BBs need 7 inches deck anyway which means you really only need 9-10 inches belt to be close to immune at everything but point blank range and that keeping turrets and firepower alive increases the enemy "under fire penalty" thus worsening enemy accuracy it also means you deal more damage and knock out their guns and thus you can win even with less hulls because you are as armored but have more guns active because theirs get destroyed also flashfire risk is real
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Dec 14, 2021 20:39:15 GMT -6
Flashfire risk is always a concern for me. I've had it work both for and against me and knocking out a major ship at any point of the battle can change the entire nature of the engagement.
Otherwise I'm mostly in agreement with Hawkeye most especially with the point about you being screwed for the time being. Japan doesn't have the finances to keep up with the battleship technology race for that period and I'd argue it's a mistake to even try. Give it 10 more years for the technology to settle and for you to catch up in gun caliber and you can build superior ships which will actually maintain their position for a good while. But in the here and now, just focus on getting serviceable ships built that'll do their job for a little while but will never be anything exceptional. Stick to 20-21 knots, belt armor slightly higher than gun caliber, turret armor slightly above belt armor, trim deck armor and turret top armor to do that more effectively and for the general cost and displacement savings in the here and now. You won't be outpunching their superior ships right now no matter what you build, but they're also going to have a rough time getting all the way over to you and your ships will still be good enough to deal with Russians or other 3rd rate navies. Your time will come, it's just not now, and given your technological inferiority there's nothing you can currently do to change that.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 15, 2021 0:51:58 GMT -6
My experience with flash fires are that if I am not British from 30s the risk is quite minimal, so excess of armouring turrets is not justified. I usually armour turrets with same thickness or very slightly more than belt. For early dreadnoughts (sloped deck armour scheme) turrets have usually 1 to 2 inch thicker armour, with early AoN it is usually same or just up to 1.5" more armour. Later battleships max 1" but quite often belt armour has better immunity zone as if gunfire is so close (bellow 15.000 yards), having undamaged engines are more important for ship survival.
For cruisers, it depends but single mounts up to 6" never gets more than shield up to 2" and quite often even later cruisers has only 2" of turret armour against destroyer caliber guns. Heavy cruisers have sometimes only 2 to 4" armour on turrets too, especially the smaller ones around 10.000 which are built to be economic. I even try heavy cruisers about 11000 tons with 12-16x8" guns with minimal armour and they were good. Cruisers are quite often scouts and being hit but heavy shells so no armour can protect them and if they face cruiser opposition firepower is good alternative. So if I do not build large 18.000 cruisers, I do not focus on armour.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Dec 15, 2021 3:15:56 GMT -6
My experience with flash fires are that if I am not British from 30s the risk is quite minimal, so excess of armouring turrets is not justified. I usually armour turrets with same thickness or very slightly more than belt. For early dreadnoughts (sloped deck armour scheme) turrets have usually 1 to 2 inch thicker armour, with early AoN it is usually same or just up to 1.5" more armour. Later battleships max 1" but quite often belt armour has better immunity zone as if gunfire is so close (bellow 15.000 yards), having undamaged engines are more important for ship survival. For cruisers, it depends but single mounts up to 6" never gets more than shield up to 2" and quite often even later cruisers has only 2" of turret armour against destroyer caliber guns. Heavy cruisers have sometimes only 2 to 4" armour on turrets too, especially the smaller ones around 10.000 which are built to be economic. I even try heavy cruisers about 11000 tons with 12-16x8" guns with minimal armour and they were good. Cruisers are quite often scouts and being hit but heavy shells so no armour can protect them and if they face cruiser opposition firepower is good alternative. So if I do not build large 18.000 cruisers, I do not focus on armour. Also remember that you can angle your ship but not your barbette/turrets so impacts to the turret are much more likely to penetrate in actual combat circumstances assuming similar thickness because chances for a perfect 90 degrees impact on belt is low while turrets are always pointing at the target and thus chance for perfect impact angle is very high and as mentioned for each turret knocked out the penalty imposed on the enemy accuracy wise lowers on top of that the damage you deal decreases Generally i wouldn't recommend using AON its strictly worse than sloped deck armor scheme even if you don't use BE (which i would recommend) this is because while belt and deck do weight slightly less on AON the values don't combine in belt value while sloped deck scheme does For example a BB with a 4 inch deck and 12 inch belt with AON has 12 inches belt and 4 inches deck simple A sloped armor scheme BB with 4 inch deck and 12 inch belt has 16 inches of effective belt armor as the deck is combined with the belt for effective belt thickness for half the weight cost that an AON scheme of the same protection would require in addition to this the extra sloped deck armor has a modifier with range and gets stronger the closer the target hitting you is which means at close range each inch of sloped deck armor can give up to 1.5 inches of belt armor usually its just 1.1 to 1.3 at common combat ranges in addition to that sloped deck armor scheme allows BE protection where alot of hits flooding and structure damage is taken from HE shells and 2.5 to 3 inches means you don't get flooded by HE and significantly reduces structure damage taken This overall leads to less damage taken and as a result also less accuracy penalty from damage Its fine to use AON for historical purposes but in its current iteration its just straight up worse than Sloped deck armour scheme ESPECIALLY for close range brawls where sloped deck comes into its own especially if you run "deck heavy" ships lategame for example late game ships usually have 7 inches of armor to protect against bombs this means that running sloped deck means those 7 inches of deck are both belt and deck armor and combined with 10 inches belt already gives you 17 inches of armor at long range and over 20.5 inches of belt armor at close range which means you save enormous amounts of weight compared to an AON ship trying to have 7 inch deck and 18 inch belt The extra tonnage saved despite same protection level can be used to protect turrets or if you dont care about turrets being knocked out even more belt armor
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 15, 2021 14:06:56 GMT -6
The main point of AoN was to have enough volume to protect ship buoyancy even if everything else is flooded. That is not case of standard WW1 armour scheme of sloped deck. So AoN protect overall more volume than sloped deck.
Another thing is that AoN ships is less prone to decreasing speed by damage.
The advantage of sloped deck is that even in relatively close distance, your machinery is reasonable protected. But if ship is such condition (similar to Bismarck), it is just a wreck.
It depends on what your standard battle range is. My standard battle range after 1920 is about 15000-20000 yards. For that range AoN armour can protect citadel and I think it gives better result. If you battle range is 10000 yards than AoN cannot protect citadel and sloped deck give you some advantage however the ship will be still burning wreck if it is hit by so many shells, so advantage is a little dubious.
|
|