|
Post by tbr on Jan 7, 2022 5:42:23 GMT -6
One nitpick here, the main reason the British BC's destroyed was propellant chemistry, with burst charge chemistry at second place. Beatty's influence on safety procedures exacerbated matters but was not decisive. If there had been a longer (and closer) BB-BB engagement several RN BB's would have joined the BC's in exploding.
The propellant chemistry with its very rapid "burn" meant that British ship could "explode" from propellant burn alone (German ships arguably couldn't), i.e. without initiating the burst charges in the magazine. That did not happen every time "flash" occurred, but with a rather high probability. And it could and did happen in port during "normal" or "peace" operations as well. The burst charge chemistry was instable with the degradation products being more volatile. This lead to less penetration of the AP rounds (as they initiated earlier on average, i.e. before penetrating) and also gave a higher probability of the charges initiating as well when "propellant flash" happened. The BC fleet's safety practice only provided for a higher base probability of adverse happenings, but that was likely of less influence than the difference in armor between a RN BB and BC.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jan 9, 2022 4:57:57 GMT -6
One nitpick here, the main reason the British BC's destroyed was propellant chemistry, with burst charge chemistry at second place. Beatty's influence on safety procedures exacerbated matters but was not decisive. If there had been a longer (and closer) BB-BB engagement several RN BB's would have joined the BC's in exploding. If there had been a longer (and closer) BB-BB engagement several RN BB's would have joined the BC's in exploding. Highly disagree While the ships were still at a higher than normal chance of exploding (6 inch belt armor and cordite which quickly decomposed compared to other propellants) Beatty did not help at all by storing propellant in the turrets beyond what was permissible and by disabling flash protection In addition to Beatty's numerous other faults (such as being probably one of the worst at communication) A good video on the topic (or Jutland in general) www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkR2HpkrJ2c&t=1181sYeah no the British battleships turret and belt armor is far too thick for the German 11 or 12 inch guns to effectively penetrate at ranges beyond 10k yards and even if they did i highly doubt they would explode often (if at all) due to having all their flash protections in place maybe a magazine penetration would blow one up but anything short of that is unlikely to do anything turret flash fires which cause magazine detonations even in cases of direct hits are very uncommon even with flash fire procedures not in place and as far as we know only 2-5 have ever happened ever (one potentially though unlikely being hood (direct magazine penetration is more likely) and 2-4 being Queen mary invincible and indefatigable where both invincible and indefatigable might not have suffered any and might have taken direct magazine penetrations but indefatigable might also have taken up to two turret flash fires and subsequent magazine explosions depending on source (nobody actually knows for certain) Any source on projectiles being explosive because I've never seen an instance of this ever even in cases of direct barbette hits (kirishima) direct projectile magazine hits (kirishima) direct magazine hits (uss boise) and several several other ships which took hits to both projectile handling rooms and projectile magazines even in cases of them using as sensitive fillers in their bursters or more than the british ww1 lyddite some examples of this are Bismarck, Dunkerque, Boise, Helena, New orleans and quite a few more the bursters on British AP was not why the AP underperformed nor was the propellant powder (otherwise the British wouldn't have hit anything as underperforming propellants would just have reduced range and thus aiming at 15000 yards would instead hit maybe 12000 yards and miss the target completely) it was primarily the fuses and projectile designs which meant British AP shells suffered from heavy base slap on impacts at 20 degrees + which initiated the projectile fuses In addition to that projectiles are very hard if not next to impossible to blow up contrary to propellant powder (no case ive been able to find has had a projectile detonate) there are several cases of fires, projectile hits, explosions, and other nasty stuff happening to projectile storage with no projectiles being in danger of exploding Projectiles are hilariously inert even in the most unstable of cases such as Japanese Picric acid bursters (which when decomposed were much more unstable) but despite that Kirishimas 6 inch Picric acid filled HE projectile bursters survived a direct 16 inch projectile from Washington which exploded the following fire powder magazine being on fire (later being flooded) and the projectiles still didn't blow up and are now resting all around Kirishima at her wreck site (due to the giant gaping hole where the powder magazine was) There are also several examples of US cruisers and ships in general taking handling room hits to their projectiles and it not doing any damage the same goes for japan and the British (who suffered some damage to magazines/projectiles from a variety of sources and never had any projectiles blow up On that note RTW actually models this very well projectile hits to turrets that penetrate (basically barbette/turret pens) are VERY unlikely to blow up your ship and projectile detonations from hits is essentially impossible
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jan 9, 2022 5:53:26 GMT -6
Any BB of (IIRC) 28+ knots is considered a Fast Battleship and will be used just like a BC by the battle-generator TY! So in a Cruiser battle, where I have a fast BB, the fast BB will be used instead of a CA? Because I've never seen my CA be chosen against a BC when I had a BC in the area. If that is the case, why build BC's beyond that point in which I can make fast BB's? In a cruiser battle the Fast BB is likely to either replace or compliment your CA If the enemy has BCs you can often have your CAs face enemy BCs alone (though not always common) There is no reason to build BCs post 1925/1930 Fast BBs replace BCs and a BB is counted as a Fast BB at any speed at or beyond 27 knots However just because it can get into CA battles does not mean it can still chase CA BCs are the only way to effectively hunt heavy cruisers without having to use heavy cruisers before 1925/1930 with the way the combat/battle generator works Battlecruisers are not a thing in game (or IRL) when fast battleships appear so it makes sense for the game to also do away with them in the 30s Some of this stuff can be a bit confusing but you can always ask questions and get the historical context for why things work the way they do on the RTW discord discord.gg/bXs5GFPV6E
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 9, 2022 14:49:03 GMT -6
The link goes into some of it, I cannot offhand link to anything better online (i.e. not in print). I did read some primary sources however, including the 1920's German Navy "Jutland AAR", since I had access on my last active duty posting.
The main problem of the British (and, to some extent, the French) was the propellant, both its basic design and its more rapid deterioration. In practice the actual propellant onboard would always have aged somewhat of course...
The same deterioation affected the bursting charges of the Brits, it formed metallic salts in reaction with the shell's metal. Those salts were also somewhat volatile, leading to the British shels initiating before full penetration, which exacerbated their other design flaws. Those salts also made the shells more volatile in the magazine. The later "Greenboys" mitigated the design flaws and were also new production (i.e. were less "aged") so they did work way better, not that there were any occasions to proove that conclusively.
Looking at the last source one can see that the Germans had their own problems, but rather in the other direction, with a too high dud rate.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jan 10, 2022 2:42:13 GMT -6
The link goes into some of it, I cannot offhand link to anything better online (i.e. not in print). I did read some primary sources however, including the 1920's German Navy "Jutland AAR", since I had access on my last active duty posting.
The main problem of the British (and, to some extent, the French) was the propellant, both its basic design and its more rapid deterioration. In practice the actual propellant onboard would always have aged somewhat of course...
The same deterioation affected the bursting charges of the Brits, it formed metallic salts in reaction with the shell's metal. Those salts were also somewhat volatile, leading to the British shels initiating before full penetration, which exacerbated their other design flaws. Those salts also made the shells more volatile in the magazine. The later "Greenboys" mitigated the design flaws and were also new production (i.e. were less "aged") so they did work way better, not that there were any occasions to proove that conclusively.
Looking at the last source one can see that the Germans had their own problems, but rather in the other direction, with a too high dud rate. Agree british propellant was a problem, but my initial point was that Beattys procedures of disabling flash protection and storing extra powder in the turrets could very well have doomed some of his battlecruisers and made them much more volatile than they should have been Yes to start with they were already quite explosive but making them even more explosive wont solve that problem rather makes it many times worse. Generally speaking practically everyone had problems with projectiles before the 1920/30s the fuse was either too weak/sensitive and was destroyed on impact or broke during higher impact angles (15 degrees +) the projectiles usually also had too thin base walls and broke during higher impact angles or their fillers were bad or several other reasons caused them to massively underperform
|
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Jan 10, 2022 10:47:14 GMT -6
In my game, the USA went nuts and built around 16 BCs in the years leading up to mid 40’s. I guess the best way to counter that is to build better armored fast bbs. The problem remains tho, which is central to my OP, without adequate BC’s of my own, my CAs often run into situations they can’t handle due to mission matchups. I suppose you just have to make sure your CAs are faster than enemy BCs.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jan 11, 2022 6:54:26 GMT -6
In my game, the USA went nuts and built around 16 BCs in the years leading up to mid 40’s. I guess the best way to counter that is to build better armored fast bbs. The problem remains tho, which is central to my OP, without adequate BC’s of my own, my CAs often run into situations they can’t handle due to mission matchups. I suppose you just have to make sure your CAs are faster than enemy BCs. Yep and even then an enemy lucky hit might slow you too much and it also means your CA might loose CA v CA duels due to having too much weight in speed/machinery Another solution is to just not build CAs and build CLs instead
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Jan 12, 2022 12:07:22 GMT -6
In my game, the USA went nuts and built around 16 BCs in the years leading up to mid 40’s. I guess the best way to counter that is to build better armored fast bbs. The problem remains tho, which is central to my OP, without adequate BC’s of my own, my CAs often run into situations they can’t handle due to mission matchups. I suppose you just have to make sure your CAs are faster than enemy BCs. Yep and even then an enemy lucky hit might slow you too much and it also means your CA might loose CA v CA duels due to having too much weight in speed/machinery Another solution is to just not build CAs and build CLs instead The "only CL" solution is bad as AI CAs are somewhat armored againist 6'' gunfire, and there are many of them, so your cruiser forces will be able to do precisely nothing. It'd be another story if CLs were only limited by displacement and maybe armor, rather than gun caliber... In my games, the AI is usually a CA nut rather than a BC nut, so I build Deutschland-style CAs for raiding, raider interception and CA battles. Their superior range more than offsets the inability to make them fast enough to chase the enemies down and adequately armoured at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 12, 2022 13:12:20 GMT -6
Yep and even then an enemy lucky hit might slow you too much and it also means your CA might loose CA v CA duels due to having too much weight in speed/machinery Another solution is to just not build CAs and build CLs instead The "only CL" solution is bad as AI CAs are somewhat armored againist 6'' gunfire, and there are many of them, so your cruiser forces will be able to do precisely nothing.
I regularly sink the computer's CAs in gunnery engagements with 6" and even 5" CLs - frequently CLs built far short of the eventual 12,000-ton limit - so I'm going to have to suggest that your claim that "CL-only is bad because your cruiser forces will be able to do precisely nothing" is, hm, exaggerated.
Honestly, it's CAs that I find to be most often worthless; I've never felt that I truly needed them, they rarely show up when I might actually want them, and they far too often show up when I'd really rather not have them. If I have to face a battlecruiser with a CL or a CA, I'd rather face it with a CL since that's a less expensive loss if I can't run away, really isn't much worse off in a gun fight by any practical measure except possibly if the computer's battlecruiser is one of those awful things with 6" armor, and is probably at least as capable of torpedoing a capital ship as a CA would be, while if I'm facing one of the computer's CAs I'm fairly confident that I can either sink or escape from it with one of my CLs and more confident that I can sink it with two of my CLs. About the only reason why I resume building CAs in the late game is that SAMs start getting in the way of all-centerline 5x3 SP and 6x2 DP armaments and can be a bit difficult to squeeze onto sub-CL-max cruisers without really cutting back on the gun armament.
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on Jan 13, 2022 20:36:21 GMT -6
The "only CL" solution is bad as AI CAs are somewhat armored againist 6'' gunfire, and there are many of them, so your cruiser forces will be able to do precisely nothing.
I regularly sink the computer's CAs in gunnery engagements with 6" and even 5" CLs - frequently CLs built far short of the eventual 12,000-ton limit - so I'm going to have to suggest that your claim that "CL-only is bad because your cruiser forces will be able to do precisely nothing" is, hm, exaggerated.
Honestly, it's CAs that I find to be most often worthless; I've never felt that I truly needed them, they rarely show up when I might actually want them, and they far too often show up when I'd really rather not have them. If I have to face a battlecruiser with a CL or a CA, I'd rather face it with a CL since that's a less expensive loss if I can't run away, really isn't much worse off in a gun fight by any practical measure except possibly if the computer's battlecruiser is one of those awful things with 6" armor, and is probably at least as capable of torpedoing a capital ship as a CA would be, while if I'm facing one of the computer's CAs I'm fairly confident that I can either sink or escape from it with one of my CLs and more confident that I can sink it with two of my CLs. About the only reason why I resume building CAs in the late game is that SAMs start getting in the way of all-centerline 5x3 SP and 6x2 DP armaments and can be a bit difficult to squeeze onto sub-CL-max cruisers without really cutting back on the gun armament.
I definitely find the CA to be the most worthless ship type for the majority of the first decade, since once they get fast enough for their speed to matter, they're almost as expensive as a B. Oddly enough it is only if you combine the isolated statements that a) CAs aren't allocated well in the generator, and b) there is a great chance that a CL can sink a CA by itself; that I would wholeheartedly agree. In the daytime, it seems that a CL, and mine are pretty well decked-out CLs, doesn't stand a good chance against a CA, needing slightly more than 1 1/2 of them for me to give myself a 50/50 chance of prevailing. But, at night, in which the CAs do seem to pop up quite frequently, and close to the enemy more often than the capital ships, a CL is indeed a good match for a CA. I make about twice as many CLs as CAs. I only make that many CAs out of inertia and because prestige-wise I don't want the Naval Board mad at me for neglecting this important facet of naval warfare. Although I do find them pretty good at counterraiding, seeming to make up their cost in terms of ships sunk versus getting sunk compared to a CL. Although I will also press my CLs into counterraiding when the need arises, I'm doing it with the knowledge that it will be a crapshoot as to whether they sink or swim. CLs might do better at disrupting raiders versus their cost, but even if so, it is a total system: CAs for the threat to ships, and CLs for the economic benefit.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Jan 13, 2022 23:50:21 GMT -6
I'm the complete opposite.
My legacy fleet consists of B, CA and DD (well, and tons of KE).
My CA are also more like "super CA" for the time (in 1900, they are 14+ kt, 23 knots, 4 x 9" and a massive battery of 6" secondaries, as soon as medium wing-turrets are unlocked, they are 16+ kt, 24+ knot, 12 x 9" guns)
Now, those CA are very expensive but I don't need a lot of them (Germany, larger fleet setting, I start with perhaps 8 CA), so the overall cost isn't higher than if I would go with a more traditional CA + CL approach and since the battle-generator loves cruiser-engagements and since I don't have CL, every single one of them will be fought by my somewhat OP CAs (this pretty much negates your point a).
Personally, I think I'm easily getting my money's worth out of them
Addendum: My early 16k, 24 knot CA are also prime candidates to be turned into my first CVL, btw.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jan 14, 2022 2:10:01 GMT -6
I'm the complete opposite. My legacy fleet consists of B, CA and DD (well, and tons of KE). My CA are also more like "super CA" for the time (in 1900, they are 14+ kt, 23 knots, 4 x 9" and a massive battery of 6" secondaries, as soon as medium wing-turrets are unlocked, they are 16+ kt, 24+ knot, 12 x 9" guns) Now, those CA are very expensive but I don't need a lot of them (Germany, larger fleet setting, I start with perhaps 8 CA), so the overall cost isn't higher than if I would go with a more traditional CA + CL approach and since the battle-generator loves cruiser-engagements and since I don't have CL, every single one of them will be fought by my somewhat OP CAs (this pretty much negates your point a). Personally, I think I'm easily getting my money's worth out of them Addendum: My early 16k, 24 knot CA are also prime candidates to be turned into my first CVL, btw. I'd agree here. My most useful ships for most of the first decade, until dreadnoughts and proper Battlecruisers become numerous enough to dominate, are the big Armoured Cruisers. They are really expensive but can generally hold their own against Pre-dreadnoughts and are tactically VERY useful in fleet actions! A division of big CAs has the speed to head reach the enemy and the muscle to turn their line... The role envisaged for the Queen Elizabeth class effectively. Their only disadvantage is price, generally AT LEAST as much as my latest B...
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Jan 14, 2022 11:00:41 GMT -6
I'm the complete opposite. My legacy fleet consists of B, CA and DD (well, and tons of KE). My CA are also more like "super CA" for the time (in 1900, they are 14+ kt, 23 knots, 4 x 9" and a massive battery of 6" secondaries, as soon as medium wing-turrets are unlocked, they are 16+ kt, 24+ knot, 12 x 9" guns) Now, those CA are very expensive but I don't need a lot of them (Germany, larger fleet setting, I start with perhaps 8 CA), so the overall cost isn't higher than if I would go with a more traditional CA + CL approach and since the battle-generator loves cruiser-engagements and since I don't have CL, every single one of them will be fought by my somewhat OP CAs (this pretty much negates your point a). Personally, I think I'm easily getting my money's worth out of them Addendum: My early 16k, 24 knot CA are also prime candidates to be turned into my first CVL, btw. What do you use all those KE's for? I just have some colonial/MS ships, and some purpose built MS. About 25 ships in total on super large fleets. Wouldn't you worry about losing those CA's to destroyers in cruiser actions when they are so expensive? I may try all CA's at some point, but I'm kind of unsure of the wisdom of such a strategy.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Jan 14, 2022 12:28:59 GMT -6
I usually play Germany with a "a place in the sun" background, i.e. the Kaiser wants colonies, all the colonies, so I build a KE fleet for foreign station (I field, at a minimum, 18 x 1600 ton colonial KE, 18 x 900 ton (future) sub-hunter and 18 x 600 ton Minsweeper KEs in the legacy fleet of a larger fleet game).
In addition, in my experience, my main enemies, France and Russia, sometimes Italy, often go on a submarine building spree after losing a war or three, so I need tons of ASW ships. I just checked my current game and as Germany, larger fleet in 1924, I have 113 KE and 142 DD, but 66 of those DD have been refitted as ASW ships, which would give me an ASW rating of 730 but I currently don't need that much since France (which I'm at war with), only has some 30 subs right now, so I have all my MS and about half my Sub-Hunter on AF to soak up those mine and torp pop-ups.
Finally, I only use KE for foreign station. My actual warships are in Northern Europe, ready to blockading France or Russia or to be send into the Med to blockade Italy. Early game, most of my colonies can't be invaded, so putting warships there is kind of pointless. Later on, I have either driven my enemy out of a sea-zone by taking all their colonies there, so they can't base ships there anyway or, in areas I only have one or two, I couldn't care less about losing a diddly colony in the South Pacific.
There are exceptions, of course. Kiautschu Bay is heavily fortified and expanded aggressively, as a springboard to invade Liaotung and I _will_ send a squadron there once tensions with Russia rise, but anything else, yeah, if France wants to send a fleet there to invade, say, South-West Africa, hey, all the easier to blockade them at home.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for losing CA to DDs. This has been rare to the extreme. I don't do night surface engagement with anything larger than a DD. Any CA/B/BB/BC immediately turns around, all the DD are send in, torping the _AI's_ big ships left and right. And during the day, I keep my distance. In the early stages of the game, my massive secondary batteries keep DDs easily in check and later on my gunnery is good enough to deal with them at a range, where their torps aren't a real threat. Sure, I eat a torp or two once in a while but to lose a CA has been exceedingly rare.
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Apr 8, 2022 22:32:02 GMT -6
Well to be honest I have had things that should be classed as (F)BB get classed as BC. A 90000 ton ship with 12 16" guns and 44 sec/ter guns 16" belt, 8" deck and 35 knots can get classed as a BC. The thing is in no way a BC but tell the game that Is it not? This is clearly a ship that's put a premium on speed - there's nothing wrong with the armament or the armor protection per se, but for a 90,000-ton vessel there's not really anything noteworthy about those aspects of the ship, either, except perhaps that they're on the lighter end of what you'd expect to see on something of this scale - and a ship with a more reasonable design speed of 30 knots could probably shave at least ten or fifteen thousand tons off the design displacement without sacrificing pretty much anything else. Put another way, something like this would be to a Montana what Hood was to Queen Elizabeth - two ships with essentially the same armament and armor protection, but the former significantly larger than the latter for more or less the sole purpose of achieving a higher speed.
It should also be remembered that there was a time in the real world when the British, for example, called any capital ship faster than ~25 knots a battlecruiser regardless of its other capabilities. What makes a battleship a battleship and a battlecruiser a battlecruiser depends on who and when you ask the question, and while the "conventional" image of a battlecruiser is a fast ship that's armed about as well as a contemporary battleship but sacrifices armor protection to achieve its speed this really isn't universally true - German battlecruisers tended to be armored about as well as contemporary battleships but carried fewer, lighter guns and usually weren't quite as much faster than contemporary battleships as their British counterparts while Hood was essentially a Queen Elizabeth or an R writ large to achieve a very high speed, for example.
The 30 knot equivalent has 20" guns in place of 16". Virtually nothing else changes. I also have an 18" one with 1 knot less speed that is also classed as a BC, they are not, these are clearly fast battleships. These things are beasts that I have literally used to kill entire enemy fleets in combat. Their armor scheme is designed to be impenetrable to 16" guns at most ranges (I know that's not how the game actually works but its what I was aiming for). Given the AI really doesn't go heavier for big gun ships it was the benchmark I was aiming for when I planned out what these things would be fighting. These things were designed to run down any retreating enemy heavy ships and tear them to pieces. They also happen to be very good at running down just about anything but fast destroyers, or at least keeping them in their gun range long enough to cripple them. They also have a large loadout for heavy gun ships as they are designed for prolonged combat, I think the 16" model has 250 rounds while the 18" and 20" ships both have 200. And they have SAM launchers and side mounted torpedo tubes.
|
|