|
Post by dorn on Oct 24, 2018 3:03:39 GMT -6
For me, the problem with building smallish late-game CAs is that I don't really feel that they have a purpose. Countering the computer's light cruisers can be done well enough by my own light cruisers, fulfilling foreign station requirements can in general be more economically done using old CLs and maybe old CAs if I still have any in service (or maybe small old capital ships, if I have a station with a high enough tonnage requirement) than by building ships specifically for the purpose, and - while it depends on what you mean by 'smallish' - my feeling is that a smallish 8" CA is unlikely to be much better against the computer's late-game CAs than a large late-game CL would be, because I don't see it having the armor to resist 9" or 10" gunfire much better than a typical late-game 6" CL (it'd have some advantage, because 8" guns wouldn't be as badly out-ranged by 9" or 10" guns as 6" guns would be, and 8" guns would penetrate the typically-inadequate armor of late-game CAs sooner and at longer range than 6" guns would, but I don't see it being enough to matter; whether a smallish 8" CA or a large 6" CL, I'd probably want about two of them to counter one of the computer's typical late-game 9" or 10" CAs).
That said, I've been experimenting with 28kn 2x3x11" 10,000t CAs loosely based on the Deutschland-class cruisers/panzerschiffes/'pocket battleships' lately. Haven't yet managed to get them into combat with anything that could actually test their capabilities (I've only had them in one engagement over four games, and it was against an AMC, though to be fair I've never yet built more than about six of them before the mid-1940s and I don't think I've ever laid one down before the very-late-1920s), but I keep half-hoping and half-dreading* that I'll have one for a fight against one of the computer's typical late-game 10" CAs. *Their belt and deck armor is in my opinion rather inadequate; it's difficult to get 28 knots, a zone of immunity against 10" shells on the main battery turrets, and a halfway decent 4" secondary battery on 10,000 tons until very late in the game, and as a result they tend to have belt and deck armor fairly comparable to that of contemporary CLs. Unfortunately, increasing the nominal displacement above 10,000 tons results in them being reclassified as battlecruisers by the game.
Sometimes I built smallish CA around 1916-7. These ships could cost around 35M, tonnage around 9000 tons, have speed of 30 knots, 3x2x8" guns, with AoN armor around 3.5" belt armor. Their advantage is that can face more CLs which is good for smaller nations and you can built them quite early. However these ships usually have very short live as with CAs built by AI they usefulness ends. As I play only till 1925, it works quite well. They main advantage is their range of fire with 8" guns with higher damage allowing them cripple CLs before doing any significant damage and 3.5" belt armor sometimes works at that range. They can face even new CLs with double turrets as usually 30 knots are good speed to catch them.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 24, 2018 7:27:14 GMT -6
aeson - I didn't miss it, I just didn't understand it LOL. Clearer now, thank you. But pretty much every navy went straight to the top limits the treaties allowed, not just the Americans - look at the 'County' and 'Town' classes, the 'Atago' and 'Mogami' classes, and so forth. But for the Americans, don't forget the largest of the large cruisers - the 'Alaska' class. I agree that, as RtW now stands, there isn't much point to building CAs after, say, 1905 or so. But a small-ish CA isn't terribly expensive, gives good value in a colonial seazone and can crunch a CL if the game ever puts up that kind of mission. They also work reasonably well as raiders, in that it increases the chance of an interception. And I did say, 'if I have the money'. Sometimes you have a small surplus, not large enough for a capital ship. Like you, I prefer to use a large, powerful CL - I think they are better value for money and more useful because more missions call for them. Never had any luck recreating the 'Deutschland' class except with 10" guns. I agree that it is really difficult to cram all that into 10k displacement (which is why the German pocket battleships were more like 12-14k LOL).
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 24, 2018 8:41:29 GMT -6
But pretty much every navy went straight to the top limits the treaties allowed Only for the 8" or 'heavy' cruisers, and unlike the US all the other powers built relatively many smaller 6" cruisers while building small numbers of Treatymax 8" cruisers between the Washington Naval Treaty and about 1935, when the Treatymax 6" or 'light' cruisers appeared - and pretty much only the US and Britain actually built more than one class of Treatymax light cruisers, despite the London treaties of 1930 and 1936 making Treatymax 6" or 'light' cruisers more appealing by limiting the number and total displacement of 8" or 'heavy' cruisers. France never completed a Treatymax light cruiser in the Treaty period; Japan's only class of Treatymax light cruisers, the Mogamis, were designed with a later conversion to the 8" or 'heavy' cruiser type in mind, which was done in 1939; Italy built the two-ship Duca degli Abrucci class of Treatymax light cruisers and then followed it with the two-ship 5900-ton Etna and four-ship (of twelve planned) 3,750-ton Capitani Romani classes; and even Britain followed the ten Treatymax light cruisers of the three Town classes with the ~5800-ton Dido and ~8500-8800 ton Crown Colony classes, many of which were under construction before the outbreak of the Second World War, and never really went back to building Treatymax or super-Treatymax light cruisers, unless you count the Tiger class that languished on the drawing boards and in the yards for the best part of twenty years (much like the French De Grasse, France's only completed Treatymax light cruiser, which like the British Tigers was only completed and commissioned in the 1950s).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 24, 2018 14:52:56 GMT -6
With the Atlantas, while they were laid down after the treaty period was over, I've just pulled out Whitley's Cruisers of World War Two to refresh my memory and it confirmed that the Atlantas were still designed under the 8,000t light cruiser treaty limitation - so they are one example of the US intending to build non-max CLs (even if Germany decided to scupper the treaty period and a whole lot else It's also worth keeping in mind the US and Japan (Japan should have had trade protection concerns, but was very good at not thinking about them!) didn't have the same trade protection concerns Britain did, nor did the US have quite as much fiscal constraint, so they could get away with bigger ships that had a primarily surface warfare rather than trade protection role. Also - don't forget Italy's 'Etnas' were originally an order from Thailand, so they're not really a good indication of Italy's strategic direction, as much as her happiness with acquiring them given the outbreak of war. The Capitani Romanis, though,are a good example (like the Atlantas) that there was value seen in non-max CLs, even by nations that didn't need to stretch their cruiser tonnage allowance to meet trade protection needs (this is going from memory, but I think the British aimed to have 70 light cruisers at one point). In-game, I do like building late-game CAs if I'm playing a nation with a decent spread, and they tend to see a fair bit of action. Even for nations like Germany or France, they can cause all sorts of trouble to lighter fleet scouts (before they run away from BCs!)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 25, 2018 4:12:52 GMT -6
With the Atlantas, while they were laid down after the treaty period was over, I've just pulled out Whitley's Cruisers of World War Two to refresh my memory and it confirmed that the Atlantas were still designed under the 8,000t light cruiser treaty limitation - so they are one example of the US intending to build non-max CLs (even if Germany decided to scupper the treaty period and a whole lot else The Treaty period was basically over by the end of 1936; Japan started ignoring Washington 1922's cruiser displacement limits with the Myoko-class heavy cruisers laid down 1924-1925, France abrogated part of London 1930 with the laying down of Richelieu in October 1935, Washington 1922 and London 1930 expired on 31 December 1936, neither Japan nor Italy were signatories to London 1936, Jean Bart being laid down less than three weeks before London 1936 went into force might represent an intentional evasion of that treaty's 14" (356mm) gun limit on capital ships before the escalator clause could be invoked, and the US and France both took advantage of the escalator clause to ignore the 14" (356mm) gun restriction on capital ships laid down after London 1936 went into force on 1 January 1937. Only the facts that the US and Britain were the predominant naval powers by a significant margin and that France, the US, and Britain were generally friendly with one another in the latter half of the 1930s prevented London 1936 from being dead on arrival due to instead of merely severely undercut by the German naval rearmament program and the refusal of Japan and Italy to become signatories to the treaty.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 25, 2018 15:44:41 GMT -6
With the Atlantas, while they were laid down after the treaty period was over, I've just pulled out Whitley's Cruisers of World War Two to refresh my memory and it confirmed that the Atlantas were still designed under the 8,000t light cruiser treaty limitation - so they are one example of the US intending to build non-max CLs (even if Germany decided to scupper the treaty period and a whole lot else The Treaty period was basically over by the end of 1936; Japan started ignoring Washington 1922's cruiser displacement limits with the Myoko-class heavy cruisers laid down 1924-1925, France abrogated part of London 1930 with the laying down of Richelieu in October 1935, Washington 1922 and London 1930 expired on 31 December 1936, neither Japan nor Italy were signatories to London 1936, Jean Bart being laid down less than three weeks before London 1936 went into force might represent an intentional evasion of that treaty's 14" (356mm) gun limit on capital ships before the escalator clause could be invoked, and the US and France both took advantage of the escalator clause to ignore the 14" (356mm) gun restriction on capital ships laid down after London 1936 went into force on 1 January 1937. Only the facts that the US and Britain were the predominant naval powers by a significant margin and that France, the US, and Britain were generally friendly with one another in the latter half of the 1930s prevented London 1936 from being dead on arrival due to instead of merely severely undercut by the German naval rearmament program and the refusal of Japan and Italy to become signatories to the treaty.
At least in Whitley's book on WW2 Cruisers, he gives the very strong impression that US cruiser designs (and construction) between London 1936 and the outbreak of WW2 remained bound by treaty arrangements and designed their cruisers with that in mind (but the difficulties of getting what they wanted in 8,000t meant the equivocated on build new ones until after the treaties had lapsed anyway), and I've read similar elsewhere. My comment only relates to US adherence to the treaty in the context of cruisers, based on the information in Whitley's book (and elsewhere, but I'll only list references I'm confident of). It's only a minor point on a minor point though, I was sharing the info in case it was of interest - please ignore it if it isn't . Also, if you had info on the design of the Atlantas (or the ordering arrangements for the Etnas) that was inconsistent with Whitley then I'd be interested, I'm always learning .
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Oct 26, 2018 2:51:32 GMT -6
I see a some problems with CAs in RTW: 1. Battle system prefers having less bigger ships. A single BC, if not countered by enemy, can and will destroy entire enemy cruiser force over the course of multiple battles. Having it damaged only means a short break in a hunting season. Deploying early BCs against cruisers feels like shooting fish in barrel with opponents incapable of either fighting back or fleeing. 2. There seems to be a problem with design formulas in 12-15k ton range IMHO, as it is possible to fit 8-10x10in+10x8in on a ship that has 3-3.5in armour and 30kts speed. IRL fitting 8-9x8in+12x4-5in was normal even on big CAs in this displacement range like Zara, Baltimore or Hipper classes.
|
|
|
Post by iridium on Oct 26, 2018 8:50:20 GMT -6
I see a some problems with CAs in RTW: 1. Battle system prefers having less bigger ships. A single BC, if not countered by enemy, can and will destroy entire enemy cruiser force over the course of multiple battles. Having it damaged only means a short break in a hunting season. Deploying early BCs against cruisers feels like shooting fish in barrel with opponents incapable of either fighting back or fleeing. 2. There seems to be a problem with design formulas in 12-15k ton range IMHO, as it is possible to fit 8-10x10in+10x8in on a ship that has 3-3.5in armour and 30kts speed. IRL fitting 8-9x8in+12x4-5in was normal even on big CAs in this displacement range like Zara, Baltimore or Hipper classes. As for the greater long term return on investment for larger vessels than smaller; it might be overstated in RTW. Though in my mind, it only makes sense that a ship of larger size will have greater capabilities and therefore prove to be superior to merchant hunters of cheaper design. The counter to this would be even larger ships, but the AI seems slow to react to such designs from my experience. I think the bigger problem is not the ship's combat effectiveness, but the AI's inability to react to a building program that is underway to effectively nullify it's merchant hunting fleet. For tonnage measurements in the 12-15k range; RTW is a simulation of ship design for the period of 1900-1925. The farther you get from this period, the more outliers you are going to see. You are going to see more and more tonnage savings from advancements in propulsion, metallurgy, structural engineering designs, etc. Also, remember that 3-3.5" is the measure of protection against penetration, not the actual thickness of armor. Meaning it might very well be a 2-2.5"" plate depending on the level of armor quality. Once you get out of the '20s the game does not accurately represent reality.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 26, 2018 22:20:55 GMT -6
It's only a minor point on a minor point though, I was sharing the info in case it was of interest - please ignore it if it isn't . Also, if you had info on the design of the Atlantas (or the ordering arrangements for the Etnas) that was inconsistent with Whitley then I'd be interested, I'm always learning . Sorry, I seem to have quoted a bit too much. I was pointing out that the outbreak of the Second World War was merely the final nail in the Treaty period's coffin; with France having abrogated part of London 1930 on national security grounds to lay down Richelieu and Jean Bart in response to the Italian Littorio and Vittorio Veneto, with Japan and Italy out of the Treaty system after about 1936, and with Germany rebuilding its navy, I don't think that the Treaty system would've been long for the world even had Hitler remained content to merely menace his neighbors rather than invading them. London 1936 limited French, American, and British designs for several years, yes, but its restrictions were already being loosened within months of it taking effect, and more of the treaty's restrictions would have been loosened or waived had war been delayed further while the US and especially France and Britain increasingly felt threatened by German, Japanese, and Italian naval construction and belligerency, especially as none of those powers were constrained by London 1936. If we're looking only at merchant sinkings, my feeling is that it is far better to build many little ships than a few big ships. The big ships are only of greater value when they get into battle, and, frankly, raiders shouldn't want to fight battles. Steaming at high speed for any significant amount of time consumes enormous quantities of fuel, engagements against reasonably comparable opponents can seriously deplete ammunition stocks, and even relatively minor damage in waters close to home can ultimately prove fatal to a raider. I'm inclined to consider Rule the Waves quite generous in regards to how well heavy surface raiders work against the enemy's cruiser fleet.
|
|