|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 25, 2017 16:33:38 GMT -6
Okay, so, from that last game as Germany, I think there might be something to this theory. For middling powers like Germany, it's not that likely you'll be able to overtake Britain in capital ship tonnage anyway (and from my experience, it's possible but extremely difficult to keep up with the US). From that, Tirpitz's use of the Ostasiatische Kreuzer Geshwader and Raeder's surface raider doctrine can come together here. In both cases, the idea was the raiders would force Britain to pull heavy units (in Tirpitz's case, Battlecruisers and in Raeder's case, Battleships) off the blockade to chase down these raiders. Now, Raeder had the problem that when he used heavy raiders, they had to launch from Germany already under blockade. By contrast, the East Asia Squadron enjoyed early success in WWI because they were already on their war station, but lost their CAs at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914 and the Protected Cruisers were scattered over the next year, with SMS Emden sinking the following March and Karlsruhe exploding at sea shortly after.
When I had my war with France, I already had both my 'colonial Battlecruisers' on their war stations (South- and North-East Asia respectively, with the two consolidating their efforts in SE Asia against French Indochina), so they were already in that position where they could do the most damage for least risk. However, I would say that this still wasn't a completely fair test of the concept: France had no Battlecruisers of her own and only 1 Dreadnought (compared to my 3 and, shortly into the war, one Fleet Battlecruiser on Home Station), so they really had no heavy forces to respond with at all. I could have put them in the Med and they'd have thrived just as well simply because France was militarily incapable of matching them. I'm going to need further testing of this concept.
However, I'm pretty impressed with the concept so far: given their role, I suspect you could make do with anywhere between 2 and 4, depending on budgetary constraints. You shouldn't need anymore than that - especially if you want Fleet Battlecruisers available as well. Also, a Battlecruiser like this, built to the latest tech in 1906, will last until the end of the game. Again, this still needs further testing, but I would describe the concept so far as promising.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 25, 2017 11:27:17 GMT -6
Well, just completed a game as Germany where I used this concept. Unfortunately, I only had two wars and in both cases I was able to put the enemy under blockade, so I couldn't test the raiding capabilities of these ships, but the SMS Moltke performed well invading French possessions in Southeast Asia and obliterating a French CA in only a couple of salvos. Ultimately built 4 such BCs, with 2 'fleet' BCs and focusing primarily on BBs. However, so far, the concept seems solid. Further testing will be required as to its raiding abilities though.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 24, 2017 14:57:01 GMT -6
So, this is a quick mock-up of the concept in 1905. Truth be told, I'm not certain you really need a third turret considering the operational nature of the concept early game, but on the other hand, it's good future-proofing.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 24, 2017 13:36:03 GMT -6
Hi All,
So, this idea came into my head earlier while reading R. Noppen, German Commerce Raiders 1914-18. I was thinking earlier about the Baltic Battlecruisers laid down by Jackie Fisher during the WWI. How effective would a 'light battlecruiser' be as a Raider?
You'd have a relatively light Battlecruiser, with long range and high speed (let's say 24-26kn in 1906), with 11-12in guns, enough armour to resist 8-11in shells at medium-long range respectively, and colonial service enabled. In theory, you would deploy these ships to your overseas stations at the outbreak of war and use them to either invade the enemy's colonies or put them on raiding status, which the ships would be optimised for. This way, the enemy would either have to send heavy fleet elements after these 'heavy raiders' or starve.
So, has anyone tried this? Do you think it'll work? I'm probably going to start up a new game to give it a shot and let you know what results I get, just thought I'd see if anyone had any insight.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 24, 2017 12:43:54 GMT -6
right.. rimbecano thnx for the info. surely and truly a few classes of the 1890 american Bs have double 8 inchers in turrets. interestingly they then went on to a few classes without them and came back to it again later. upon this i had very much begun to wonder what is happening there? 1a) did the amis get this tech/concept before the euros? (wouldn't be surprised as RTW/SAI being very euro focused) 1b) or is the heavy secondary not really a technological invention in real life (but only a RTW game thing just to add one more level to research)? 2a)were the amis simply experimenting going back and forth with and without a heavy sec? 2b)or was it changing due to destroyer and torpedo threats, or some other factor? 3) did ppl back then consider heavy secondary a definite advantage, or i guess it wasn't clear cut? while 2 and 3 might just be (summarized to) confusion and experiments, i'm most curious in 1) - is heavy sec really a "tech"? After a quick Google search, turns out the 8-inch guns on the Indiana-Class were so powerful they could only fire dead abeam or they'd damage the superstructure. My guess is the heavy secondary tech limitation is for the same reason as the cross-deck Fire limitation: U.S.S. Maine, HMS Invincible and several Italian pre-Dreadnoughts were all built for cross-deck Fire, but it didn't work because the guns would damage the ship's deck and they couldn't fire along the keel because the blast would also damage the superstructure. Put simply, they didn't work. I'll have a look at some more US pre-dreads and see what else I can find out, but it looks like the US might have abandoned the 8-inch secondaries because they were too powerful to be viable, and then came back to the concept when the casemates could take the stress. EDIT: Having now done some quick research on US pre-dreads, it appears the defect in Indiana's secondaries was not discovered until her trials. From construction to commissioning for Indiana was 1891-1895. In that time the USS Iowa also entered construction (Iowa was essentially an ocean-going upgrade of the Indiana-Class). The Kearsarge-Class was laid down in 1896, so the defect would have been known, but I noted Kearsarge's guns were mounted in twin turrets atop the main-calibre turrets, so that may have been a (poorly thought-out, since the secondary turrets could not fire independently without interfering with the main guns) solution. The Illinois-Class was laid down the following year, fitting 6-inch guns in casemates instead. This may have been due to the restrictions of the 8-inch guns, but the wiki article makes particular note that this was when rapid-firing 6-inch guns became available, which may have been seen to offset the lost firepower from the 8-inch guns. The Virginia-Class reverted to 8-inch guns in the Kearsarge's arrangement (with the same flaw). Finally, the Connecticut-Class fitted the 8-inch guns in turrets amidships. So I would gather the decision to go back to 8-inch guns was due to advancements in superstructure integrity or turret design, which made the guns more useful.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 23, 2017 17:44:15 GMT -6
So here's a idea that I'm undecided on (and please forgive me if it's been discussed already): Port Strikes by aircraft: During the 2nd World War, there were several occasions in which aircraft (Land-based and carrier-based) attacked ships in port. The notable ones are Pearl Harbor and Taranto. There were numerous less-well known port strikes on Rabual by both the USN and the RAAF. Operation Hailstone saw Truk attacked by a combination of airstrikes, with surface forces picking off fleeing ships. In the Med, Grand Harbour (Malta) was raided several times, and HMS Illustrious was badly damaged while already under repair after Operation Excess. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were damaged in a port strike by the royal air force in July of 1941. Then there is the Tirpitz being hit by Tallboy bombs (although that was RAF) The idea of attacking a fleet in port using aircraft originated in the 1st World War, with the british considering a plan due to the refusal of the German fleet to come out and fight So the question is "Should air attacks on fleets in port be permitted?". I'm on the fence with this one: Pro: It did happen historically, and had serious repercussions (I.E. loss of major fleet units either permanently or for many months). In terms of game play, it would make it so that an enemy fleet could not hide in port, and would make it risky to base a fleet out in an area with inadequate defenses. It would add a measure of challenge and creativity to the combat/strategic side of the game. Also add a sense of risk vs. reward: basing the fleet closer to where the enemy is vs. placing it in a place where it is more exposed to air attack. Con: The major raids were rare (only two real spectacular raids): so not really worth modeling. Also perhaps not really well suited to a game where the focus is on ships. Would either involve too much player control (over planes in raid) or would be abstracted or AI controlled as to not really involve the player (so why add it). Too gamey: exploitable if the AI does not build defenses or posts its fleet where there are none. Also, after the first major raid a country suffers, it's unlikely that they'd let one happen again. There may be a way to make this work: since we're likely going to get carriers in the next game, the Devs can probably work this mechanic in based on the existing Surprise Attack scenario Japan gets. After a certain amount of time, the enemy defences mobilise (currently modelled by the defending fleet having to raise steam before being able to move) and it suddenly leaves the attacking force at risk. Assuming we'll be issuing orders to the carrier AG through the carrier, this would mean we'd get a similar or far greater level of reward as currently (depending on enemy air defences) with a great deal of risk (enemy DDs, BCs or CLs/CAs rallying to chase down your CV task force). In order to launch a carrier air raid, you'd need to have at least 2 CVs in that sea zone. If the enemy has radar, their air defences and fleet should begin to respond before your strike force begin their attack. This way, it might be a bit more balanced. Of course, they should add a tactics tech which unlocks the surprise attack/carrier raid scenario for any nation if they go that route, so it's not confined to Japan.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 21, 2017 15:46:59 GMT -6
^we consider 6" to be the optimal anti-light ship caliber due to RTW game sphere mechanics. some simple math, 1 6" hit is worth 3.5 times a 4" hit, it has much greater stopping power. plus 20% range bonus (which also translates to hit rate bonus at a given range and mostly negates the hit rate vs DD drop), while the ROF is only 10% less vs the 4" guns. on penetration this surely goes to the 6", it can even shoot up CAs. now on the same weight of 12x6", i can get 22x4", only less than twice the amount of tubes. all in all it is a simple choice. however anything still costs weight. so the question is how much you're willing to spend weight on anti-DD defense vs other aspect of the ships performance, which we had been pondering. on the B this is a no brainer, this is important. on the CA, our thought is it can still end up in large sized battles outside of admiralty requirement. on "admiral" gameplay mode there is no micro managing your divisions, and before "separate scout force" is researched the CA divs will mostly lagging in the back fending for themselves, whereby it still needs a good anti-DD battery. Oh, I can see where you're coming from with the 6-inch defence guns, I just don't honestly agree. As I said, I'd prefer the higher RoF and greater accuracy-over-time of a bunch of 4-inch guns over that of 6-inch guns. That being said, my typical armament layout for a B is 12-inch primaries, 6-inch intermediaries and 3-inch tertiaries (although after seeing some of the thoughts in this thread, I may change that to 4-inchers). With Dreadnoughts I tend to favour a uniform secondary armament of 5/6-inches and with cruisers a secondary armament of 4-inches regardless of main gun calibre with no tertiaries (I use CAs to kill CLs and CLs to kill other CLs and DDs, so I rarely find an intermediary armament useful). Again, don't take this as total rejection: I tend to focus on very certain things in my ship designs.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 21, 2017 13:43:01 GMT -6
I think what makes our nation better than the others is... consistency We don't make 3-4 B designs at once, each with different speed/armor/guns balance, so we can concentrate on one tactics without getting more specialised ships less free Well, we will have this until first 2-3 good weight-saving tech arrive... Than we will move to Faster, Better, Bigger concept Or we might adopt "18 kts" battleline speed and make bigger steps into gun tech to make our enemies fear our turtleline xD "Ah! It's the American Fleet! We're helpless against firepower of that magnitu-- Wait a minute, why aren't they keeping up with us? " Very interested in seeing how this AAR goes. Unfortunately, I have exams and 3 separate assignment deadlines coming up, but I might be interested in joining a design team in about month if this is still going by then. One thing I will say about the above designs: tertiary battery. I can see the logic behind 8-10 inch intermediary guns, but the purpose of the tertiary armament is to defend against Torpedo Boats (DDS, in other words). 6-inch guns are really surplus to requirements and I'd argue are less effective at this role than smaller calibre guns. For pre-dreadnoughts, I'd be seriously sceptical mounting anti-TBD guns larger than 4-inches. Of course, if we had some ridiculous design which incorporated a ludicrous number of big guns, with no intermediate calibre, larger secondaries to combat cruisers and the like would be wise. Don't take this as outright rejection - admittedly, I haven't seen a situation where the tertiaries become so important (I typically don't let torpedo boats get that close!), it's more a case of I know 3-inch guns will pen a DD and I know they fire rapidly, so I'd rather more smaller-calibre guns which can throw a wall of shells at a DD every few seconds than a small number of medium-calibre guns which are guaranteed to sink that DD, but fire fewer shells at a lower rate of fire, with a reduced chance to hit over time. Of course, the advantage of this design is that those 6-inch guns can battle poorly-armoured light cruisers better than the 8-inch intermediaries, whereas <4-inch tertiaries would have a lot more trouble.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 20, 2017 21:43:19 GMT -6
I hate to dredge this back up, but on the Fritz X argument, I feel the need to point out Warspite wasn't just 'out of commission for 6 months'. The bomb basically destroyed most of her machinery and did so much damage the hole had to be filled with concrete to make her seaworthy again. The damage to her engine spaces meant she could only make 12-18 knots and she was essentially a 30,000t Monitor. That Fritz X attack basically ended Warspite's service in the battlefleet.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 19, 2017 7:37:29 GMT -6
after the war, the USN wanted to replace all of the 40mm guns with 3 inch AA guns, and remove the 20mm's because they had to short of a range. is this is right oldpop2000 ? As oldpop2000 said above, but also, my grandfather served aboard an RN Loch-Class Frigate and the HMS Victorious during the Malaysian Confrontation during the 1960s and he told me that the light 20mm AA on the Loch Fada was basically pointless - in an age of jet aircraft, by the time the 20mm's were in range, the attacker had already dropped its payload and was thundering over you before you could even get off a shot. Short-range AA was essentially useless after WWII.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 18, 2017 21:05:27 GMT -6
I mean, if you have thrusters (<- spelling error? really) on the side of the ship you can turn in place True, but I'm not even sure if ships had thrusters in WWII, although the Cable Ship Mackay-Bennet (1884) had a forward and aft rudder (plus propellor each) to allow it to manoeuvre in place when conducting repairs to the Atlantic telegraph network (she operated primarily out of Halifax). In any case, thrusters lose their effectiveness at speed depending on the length of the ship (longer=more drag when turning around the centre-of-rotation) and if you're attacked by a submarine, you're likely to be sailing at cruising speed (16-18kn) at least. You're better off going to flank and shifting hard rudder to evade a torpedo attack in this period.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 16, 2017 9:58:07 GMT -6
It might be a case of the difference between whether you are playing a large nation or a smaller one (specifically budget wise). I don't play the smaller nations often, one of the reasons I don't consider myself an expert player, but I could see it being much more tempting to squeeze another 10 years out of a hull by replacing the engines because I can't afford the price of an entirely new fleet as say Japan, Italy or Austria-Hungary. It's a kind of trap though. Once you do have to scrap it you're two or three generations behind the larger nations who can continuously build new ships. Since the game doesn't really penalize a quantitative inferiority, it might still be better to stick with new construction even though you have significantly fewer useful ships. That's pretty much what I found as France. With 3 first-gen BBs basically confined to home waters in wartime, I'd have been left with only just over half my battlefleet available for a war with Japan or the US. Modernising them would have cost more than a whole new ship and they'd still be short range. The only solution was to straight up replace and scrap them. But if I'd been playing Spain, A-H, or Italy, I wouldn't have been able to do even that because of the strength of my neighbours' battlefleets, and it would have still been impossible to rebuild those ships because I'd need the funds to continue new construction. I actually kind of like the fact that as France I had to seriously consider the future of those early warships. I even found myself having to do a Fisher-esque cutting off many of my older cruisers in the 1920s because they were just useless. France doesn't have many colonies, so I couldn't shove them onto colonial stations, where my rivals would easily annihilate them (Caribbean and SE Asia - both regions where two rival powers can easily deploy their battlefleets). Unlike US and UK, obsolete ships with France really became a massive liability not just to the Battlefleet, but to the navy at large.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 16, 2017 9:38:33 GMT -6
I'd argue that you can do the occasional expensive rebuild, but only on relatively recently built ships which you can improve a lot or on older designs which are still armed sufficiently well and where building a new ship would just be more costly. The more I play the less expensive rebuilds I seem to do, but I wouldn't say that doing none is that good of an option either. Agreed. I had a couple of First-Gen 20,000 ton Dreadnoughts in my last game as France which, to modernise them to 1920s standard, would cost 5,500,000 per month! To put that in perspective, my most recent Fast Battleships only cost 4,500,000 per month. I opted just to scrap them and use the latest pair to replace them. Unfortunately, I also had a first-gen Austrian Dreadnought which was in even worse shape, so it ended up cheaper for me to design and build a new design to fit in with my last-gen Super-Dreadnoughts to replace it. First time I've ever deliberately built a new last-gen design to replace an existing ship. Thing is, if I were playing Britain or the United States, I might have been more amenable towards rebuilding first-gen Dreadnoughts instead of scrapping them, but as a middling nation like France or Germany, you just don't have the budget to spend rebuilding obsolete ships and often your first-gen Dreadnoughts really are limited in how far you can modernise. With even smaller nations, you often don't even have that option: you need all the tonnage you can get, even if it is short-range, outgunned, cramped, and under-armoured. Still, rebuilding old ships to fit new fire control equipment after 10 years or so is definitely worth it if you can find the budget (such as during arms treaties).
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 15, 2017 15:09:10 GMT -6
Now, here are my favourite BB designs from that game: Completed in 1913-14, the two ships of the Massena-Class represent the Marine Nationale's first generation of 'Super-Dreadnought'. Armed with 8 13-inch guns mounted along the centreline, unlike most of its foreign competitors, the Massenas came to form the core of the Northern Fleet and the Mediterranean Fleet in both the Franco-German War and the Second Mediterranean War. Completed in 1916, the Battleships of the Marengo-Class were a massive jump in armament from their predecessors, fitting 8 15-inch guns on a displacement 6,000 tons greater than her predecessor. Alongside the Massenas, these two ships also formed the core of the Battlefleet throughout their service life, with the two ships of the class participating in the Battle of the Helgoland Bight, where they sank the German Dreadnought Hessen, built in 1912, and damaged two Preussen-Class Dreadnoughts from the period 1908-12. They also participated in the Battle of Sirte against the Austrian Battlecruiser Division, damaging two Battlecruisers and defending the North African Convoys alongside Battlecruisers Lyon and Duquesne. The Republique-Class is the latest class of Battleship to enter service, with Republique joining the Northern Fleet in 1923, shortly after the end of the Second Mediterranean War against Austria-Hungary. Part of a new generation of 'Fast Battleships', the Republiques make 24kn at full speed and mount 9 15-inch guns in 3 triple turrets. They are the most heavily-armoured ships in the Maritime Nationale, being the first to withstand 15-inch shellfire to their turrets out to a range of 18,000 metres and to its belt and deck out to a range of approximately 20,000 metres and 15,000 metres respectively. Republique's sister ship, Brennus, is expected to join the fleet in 1925 following delays due to budget shortages. The two ships are expected to replace the first-generation Dreadnoughts Courbet and Redoubtable, now at the end of their tactical usefulness (10 12-inch guns, short range, 20kn, and relatively weak armour), with the new 'Light' Battleship (24,600 tons) Devastation, replacing the equally under-powered and also under-gunned Colbert (Formerly the Austrian Dreadnought Monarch).
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 15, 2017 14:35:20 GMT -6
Now finishing a game as France (May 1924) and thought I'd share some of my designs from that game. Firstly, two of my main Battlecruisers from that game: The Lyon, commissioned in 1921, was designed to counter the large Battlecruiser fleet in German service. While she was not completed in time for the brief Franco-German War of 1919, she did see service in the war against Austria-Hungary in 1923, participating in the Battle of Sirte, assisting in the sinking of one Austrian Battlecruisers and the crippling of two more along with the older French Battlecruiser Duquesne. The Battle of Sirte ultimately forced the surrender of the Austrian regime in the following months. Such was the ship's performance that it would become the model for all future French Battlecruiser designs*. *By 'all', I mean one, given France is so pathetically poor compared to the UK and the US (and that the war ended shortly after my next BC was laid down and I had a BB a few months from completion. The Dunkerque, laid down in 1922 following the Battle of Sirte, is an enlarged Lyon, designed to match the newest French Battleships then under construction. Mounting 9 15-inch guns and even more heavily armoured than her predecessor, the Dunkerque would have been the most heavily-protected and one of the most heavily-armed Battlecruisers then in existence. At the time of writing, she is due for completion in 1927-28, though her construction has been suspended for financial reasons until the Battleship Brennus is completed.
|
|