|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 21, 2018 19:54:24 GMT -6
To be perfectly honest, I don't expect the speed of China's battle line to increase much, if at all, before the game ends. Kwang-Chou-Wan will probably be up for replacement after the war ends, but I very much doubt that I'll withdraw the surviving Tung Hais from service before the mid-1940s at the earliest and I don't think that rebuilding the three of them for 25-26 knots is worth the new battleship or or the four or five new light cruisers it'd cost me to do it. That is the vibe I got, yes. I thought about giving you a bit of extra speed and making it a fast battleship...but it didn't seem to fit into your use of a battle line.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 21, 2018 15:43:17 GMT -6
Good choices.
The spec limit on the BB speed did seem too low to be useful, so I think you made a good choice there as well.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 19, 2018 7:27:22 GMT -6
Turret armor can be as thick as I want... That is right. Try to do same cruiser with turret armor proof against 6" guns. You will end with cruiser with displacement over 5000 tons and more than double the costs. I used some guns without armor on some of my cruisers and so far 6" cruisers sometimes blow up, 5" gun cruiser I do not remember any example of it. Nevertheless it is not often worth increased costs of cruisers, especially later in the game where penetration is much higher. As always, any design has pros and cons. Of course the ship is going to be large...I'm talking about redoing my ship design (initial design is 7700 tons), not yours.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 18, 2018 17:57:26 GMT -6
Hmm. Risk of magazine explosions on these designs very high... Might revisit CFS design shortly. 2" of armor will not deflect hits either. Turret armor can be as thick as I want...
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 18, 2018 13:49:39 GMT -6
Hmm.
Risk of magazine explosions on these designs very high...
Might revisit CFS design shortly.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 11, 2018 21:43:59 GMT -6
CFS Design for a modern battleship: 43,400 tons - Oil fired engines Short Range - Speed 24 knots Belt Armor: 16 inches Deck Armor: 6 inches AON Scheme Turret Armor: 18 inch face / 6 inch roof Secondary Turrets: 8 inches Torpedo Defence: Level III Main Battery: 8x16 inch guns (AB arrangement) with increased elevation, improved quality, and advanced directors Secondary Battery: 16x6 inch guns with directors Heavily armored, impervious to torpedo attacks, best guns and fire control in the world. Cost: $5M for 30 months BB1929.40d (4.91 KB) CFS Light Cruiser Proposal: 8000 tons - Oil Fired engines Medium range - 31 knot speed Belt Armor: 2 inches Deck Armor: 1 inch Conning Tower Armor: 3.5 inches Turret Armor: 3.5 inch face and 1.5 inch roof Torpedo Defence: Level I Main Battery: 12x6 inch improved quality guns in triple turrets Torpedo Tubes: 2x3 18 inch torpedo tubes - above decks midships 30 mines Reasonable speed, lightly armored, capable of putting out impressive DPS. Cost: 1.674M for 21 months CL1929v2.40d (5.04 KB)
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 9, 2018 14:38:51 GMT -6
I'm going to assume that parrot and matlef are going to pass on this one and get things rolling again. Design Competition Results:Congratulations to Mile High Naval Architecture, who has been awarded the contract for the new battlecruiser Hai An, to be built to their MHNA BC1924 proposal. I'm slightly concerned about the lack of armor on the extensions, but on the other hand it's not like a few inches of BE/DE armor would stop much more than splinter damage at this point in the game and heavier armor on the extensions probably isn't practical even with a narrow belt. I generally use AON armor schemes on CAs and BCs from the beginning of the game, well before I get the actual AON tech, but I must say, 1924 is the latest I've designed such a ship without having the tech available. What incompetent lout is running research for the US in this game? I'm pretty sure the US has skipped AON.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 9, 2018 8:11:23 GMT -6
The ships look beautiful.
May they have a long and glorious service!
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 6, 2018 20:23:39 GMT -6
Essentially, occupy a position that is so offensive to your opponent (Midway or an Aleutian island) so that your enemy is compelled to fight you in the place of your choosing.
IMO, referring to AL as a diversion in favor of MI is not quite right. MI itself is a diversion in favor of the hoped for decisive battle.
IJA and IJN didn't seem to intend to conduct a Solomon's style attritional campaign based on occupation of Midway...it seems strange given the IJN emphasis on decisive battle to posit that they intended to use the base at Midway for much beyond forcing a decisive fight.
Anyway, I think we are broadly in agreement.
The fascinating thing to me is the amount of things in military plans from WW2 that is just wrong. I doubt the IJA had sufficient capability to take Midway at all...and the IJN was incapable of supplying it over the long term if the decisive battle didn't occur. So the plan rests on plenty of faulty assumptions from the beginning?
I shudder to think how much this type of flawed planning assumptions pervades the military environment. It certainly pervades the pharmaceutical business world.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 6, 2018 14:56:55 GMT -6
Isn't it also possible that BOTH amphibious operations were essentially diversions to flush out the real prey (US offensive capability) and fight a battle under local land based air?
To say the Aleutian Operation was to draw our forces away from Midway presupposes that the goal of Operation MI was to acquire a nearly useless and difficult to supply atoll. Its only practical use was to act as a source of LBA to take on the USN.
In my reading of events, the target of the operations was the elusive USN strike units...the multiple attacks were designed to draw out the fleet into an area where the Japanese fleet had the comparative advantage.
Neither operation was a decoy for the other...they were provocations offering the USN valuable targets worth coming out from Pearl...thus exposing them to conditions which might lead to a decisive battle under favorable to Japan circumstances.
Is this contradicted in the records?
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 28, 2017 23:30:29 GMT -6
Design Competition 10, Part 1: CA1924
The Imperial Chinese Navy would like to see proposals for a pair of armored cruisers to replace the Ning Hai and Nan Chen, currently in mothballs and badly obsolete. A degree of tactical compatibility with Nan Jui is desired so the Navy feels that a design speed of 29 or 30 knots is appropriate, but is willing to consider faster designs. It is desired that the ship have a main battery equivalent to nine 9" guns, and have at least an 8" belt and 2" deck, with correspondingly thick turret face and top armor. A secondary battery of at least 12 guns of 4", 5", or 6" caliber is also desired. Design Competition 10, Part 2: BC1924
The Imperial Chinese Navy would additionally like to increase the size of its battlecruiser force, Kai Chi having performed most satisfactorily in the recent Sino-Japanese War and the modernization of the battle line having been completed. We would prefer a battlecruiser armored to resist 15" gunfire and carrying 6 or 7 guns of at least 14" caliber in two turrets, but more traditional battlecruiser designs will be considered acceptable if they have a 4" deck and at least 16" turret face and 5" turret top armor. A design speed of 27 or 28 knots is desired, as is a secondary battery of at least 16 4", 5", or 6" guns. If you propose a ship with 6 or 7 guns in two turrets, I want the main battery ammunition stowage to be at least 130 rounds per gun for 14" or at least 120 rounds per gun for heavier guns.There are no particular budgetary constraints in mind for either of these projects. Unfortunately, due to the tensions with Great Britain which arose from the Russo-British alliance, British yards will not be able to participate in this competition. Save.How do people feel about 1700 GMT January 7 (first Sunday of the new year) as a submission deadline? Is it too close to the holidays? The Emperor has requested a heavy cruiser design, with battle cruiser level armor. We submit the following for consideration: 25,200 tons - oil fired Speed: 29 knots - medium range Belt armor: 10.5 inches tapering to 3 inches Deck armor: 3.5 inches tapering to 1.5 inches Guns: 12 x 10 inch guns in ABVY configuration Gun armor: 10.5 inch face, 3.5 inch roof 12 x 6 inch secondary guns in dual turrets Secondary turret armor: 3 inches High quality guns, increased range, with the best fire control in the world. Cost: 3.580M for 27 months - 96.66M total The battle cruiser request has us scratching our heads. The specification doesn't sound like a battle cruiser at all, it sounds like a budget fast battleship. We present the following for your consideration: 51,000 tons - oil fired Speed: 29 knots - medium range Belt armor: 12 inches tapering to 3 inches Deck armor: 4.5 inches tapering to 1.5 inches Guns: 8x15 inch guns in an all forward AB configuration Armor: 18 inch turret face, 6 inch turret roof Secondary guns: 18x6 inch guns in triple turrets Secondary armor: 5 inches Cost: 6.304M for 30 months - 189.83M total The armor on this ship is sufficient to proof the guns against 15inch fire. The ship has sufficient speed to dictate range in any heavy engagement. She is not heavily armored on the belt and should not be used in close. CA1924.40d (4.76 KB) BC1924v2.40d (4.93 KB)
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 21, 2017 21:18:37 GMT -6
I've revised my proposal keeping a US based shipyard. I do not believe a Japanese yard could tender a proposal with any confidence in being awarded a contract. I've eliminated the CBC24-A proposal as it appears despite official willingness to examine an ABY/ABXY proposal any such proposal would be at a disadvantage versus a AB all forward BC. Challenge accepted!
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 21, 2017 13:38:12 GMT -6
I'll be able to post designs before the new year. Also, I see the US still hasn't figured out AON armor... I didn't think being a US yard would be challenging...I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 19, 2017 15:43:13 GMT -6
Fair enough. If the consideration wasn't major (and it sounds like cost wasn't the primary consideration), then don't include it. If you do have a hard cap though, please let us know. Carry on, good sir!
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 19, 2017 11:58:17 GMT -6
I was pretty sure the designs I put out were too expensive...but without AON armor, it was difficult to put out a budget design that produced enough firepower. If possible, aeson, can you share a cost expectation for future capital ship designs? If not, that's ok too. Loving this AAR and enjoying seeing everyone else's designs.
|
|