|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 3, 2019 8:11:50 GMT -6
generalvikus : Wasn't meant as a critique ;-), just reminded me of a game where I waited for AoN, thinking it was in subdivision and damge control while putting ship design to low. Is it possible to keep tensions low with one nation for 3 years and make a major order from them? You mentioned that even italy has competitive designs. If I was going to do that, the natural option would be my British Allies, who with their 15 inch guns almost certainly have the most competitive technology at present. Now they have been spying on me, which was absolutely un-called for, but now I think it's only fair that I return the favour. Purely an unfortunate but necessary response to their dastardly and un-gentlemanly behaviour, you understand, and nothing at all to do with the fact that they have just invented some rather inviting death rays. Nevertheless, with an alliance with the one nation that has exactly the technology I need, I think I'm probably in a fairly good position to order ships from them - and, at this stage in history, it does sound like something the US Congress would do. Nevertheless, there is always the risk that I would get my ships interned, or lose a bunch of prestige trying to avoid it, and on the other hand if it did work, it would feel a little like cheating to me, so it's not a solution that I'm really happy with either way.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 3, 2019 8:16:05 GMT -6
I had similar reservations with germany in 1916, but if the game throws you an unhistorical curve ball (no competitive guns in sight even though I did not play with varied tech where that would be ok), I came to the conclusion that I either had to throw one back (savegame editing) or play along and do something strange in game.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 3, 2019 8:23:04 GMT -6
I had similar reservations with germany in 1916, but if the game throws you an unhistorical curve ball (no competitive guns in sight even though I did not play with varied tech where that would be ok), I came to the conclusion that I either had to throw one back (savegame editing) or play along and do something strange in game. That's a fair point, and it's certainly an option - what does everybody else think about that possibility? But as for there being no competitive guns in sight - I'd just like to clarify that I do have access to 14 inch Q -1 guns, which if upgraded to Q0 could be reasonably called 'competitive' if not 'outstanding.' I wouldn't pass up on 13 inch Q1 guns either, though I would hardly call them satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 4, 2019 7:13:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 4, 2019 8:57:57 GMT -6
To start off with, let us consider the overall strategic situation. As of right now, being allied to the British, I have the capability to blockade any nation in the world other than Britain itself. At present, no power other than Britain has or will have enough ships to avoid fighting me on my terms in their own home waters. My further remarks are predicated on two assumptions: firstly, that the alliance with Britain cannot be relied upon, and secondly, that the United States Navy, having secured for itself the world’s largest naval budget, is obligated to prepare as best as possible to face any potential threat or combination of threats.
According to the first assumption – that the alliance with Britain cannot be relied upon – it follows that serious action will only occur in areas where both I and the prospective enemy have base sufficient capacity. We can therefore more or less discount both Germany and Italy as isolated threats, as neither power has the base capacity to threaten any of my holdings on its own. On the other hand, I assume that if either power were to ally with anyone other than one another, they would have access to their allies’ base capacity. I simply do not know if they would also have access if they went to war with me at the same time as another nation without having an alliance with that other nation.
Of the remaining contenders, I have fought both France and Russia before. Although both enjoy the base capacity to comfortably deploy a main fleet to the Pacific, both have seemed unwilling to do so in the past. Russia is therefore unlikely to be a credible threat on its own. By contrast, France has generally been more willing to deploy a major force to the Caribbean, although doing so exceeds its base capacity in the region and is therefore impossible for long periods.
Furthermore, because of its weakness in heavy ships, the only real danger posed by the French navy in isolation is that of surface raiders or submarines.
That leaves Britain and Japan. Naturally, Britain is by far the most dangerous potential threat. At present, with 8 modern capital ships, 14 pre-dreadnoughts, 12 CAs and 23 CLs compared to Britain’s 15 modern capital ships, 30 pre-dreadnoughts, 24 CAs and 44 CLs, I can boast almost exactly half the strength of the Royal Navy. At present, the only significant change that will come as a result of new construction is in modern capital ships: at the completion of current programmes, I will have 12 modern capital ships to Britain’s 18.
By contrast, Japan at present is a non-entity, probably even less dangerous than France. However, with the completion of three modern BCs in 1913 and two more of the same class in 1915, all of which are larger than any ship I currently have under construction, the IJN will immediately become my second biggest threat. Furthermore, in 1913 it will establish a considerable qualitative lead in capital ships which will not be redressed under the current construction programme. Regarding the Royal Navy:
The most important thing to note about the Royal Navy that I had not noticed before is that its BBs and BCs form a relatively homogenous battle-line which is limited to 24 knots. Britain’s four BBs of the London class, as well as its three Invincible class BCs, are all limited to 24 knots by design. According to the almanac, four of the five Inconstant class vessels – Britain’s next generation BCs – are also limited to 24 knots, while only the first can manage 25; presumably they were designed for 25 but did not meet their design speed. That leaves only the two Furious class vessels at 26 knots, before the most recent battlecruiser – HMS Tiger and its still under construction sister Courageous – reverted again to 25. The details of the latest class of two more BCs, both due in 1915, are still unknown, but they must have a speed of at least 25 knots to be classified as BCs. Depending on whether you believe the Almanac, that leaves Britain with the following:
Complete:
11 24 knot capital ships 3 25 knot capital ships 1 26 knot capital ship 15 total
Under Construction: 1 26 knot capital ship 2 capital ships of 25+ knots 3 total
By comparison, the US Navy has:
Complete:
3 x 21 knot 5 x 25 knot
Under Construction:
4 x 27 knot
The implication is that Britain does not now and will not in the future have enough ships of 25 knots or faster to take on all of my ships of 25 knots or faster without the help of the 24 knot ships. Therefore, the British line is effectively limited to 24 knots, which should theoretically allow me to either defeat the Royal Navy in detail, or else disengage at will.
In terms of the qualitative balance between the currently available ships of both navies, the Royal Navy generally makes up for its inferior armour with superior firepower. None of the five serving US BCs have any zone of immunity against the minimum possible armament of Q -1 14 inch guns which are used by all but one of the Royal Navy’s current BBs and BCs (the outlier, HMS Tiger, is the newest, and uses 13 inch guns. We can therefore speculate that the Royal Navy’s 14 inch guns are at best Q0, as otherwise it would seem odd to downgrade to 13 inches in the latest class, but there is no intelligence which confirms this.) Similarly, none of the British capital ships currently in service have any zone of immunity against any of their American counterparts, with the exception of HMS Tiger, which is probably immune to the 12 inch Q0 guns of the two American Constellation class BCs at around the maximum range of those guns.
Seven of Britain’s 15 modern capital ships currently in service date back to 1908 – 1909, and to the best of my knowledge these have never been refitted. It is therefore likely that these ships are equipped with Q -1 14 inch guns. As a result, it is probable that, of the four American BCs currently under construction, the two vessels of the Yorktown class with 11 inches on the belt and 2.5 inches on the deck will probably be immune to these weapons from their maximum range of 18,000 to about 15,000 yards, whereas the two vessels of the Congress class with 13 inches on the deck and only 2 inches on the belt will be immune at about 12 – 15,000 yards.
With 11 inches on the belt and 2 on the deck, the two American BBs of the New Mexico class may have some immunity to Q-1 14 inch guns at about 15,000 yards, and the unique BB USS Connecticut with 11 inches on the belt and 2.5 inches on the deck may also have some immunity at about the same range.
All of this information can be summarized as follows:
Of the 15 current British capital ships: 1 (HMS Tiger, BC) may have some immunity against 4 of the 8 current American capital ships at about 16,000 – 18,800 yards.
Of the 8 current American capital ships: 3 (all of the 21 knot BBs and none of the BCs) may have some immunity against at least 7 of the 15 British capital ships currently in service.
Furthermore;
Of the 3 British capital ships under construction:
1 (Tiger class) may have some immunity against 4 of the 8 current American capital ships at about 16,000 – 18,800 yards. 2 (Queen Mary class) are completely unknown, but since they weigh in at 32,500 tons compared to the Tiger’s 25,100, we may speculate that they are likely to have at least the same protection as the Tiger class.
In terms of weight of broadside, the total British battleline currently boasts 88 14 inch guns and 10 13 inch guns, compared to the 32 13 inch guns and 32 12 inch guns of the Americans. Adding the Tiger’s sister ship Courageous, scheduled for completion in 1915, will give the British an additional 10 13 inch guns, while the two other British BCs under construction are unknown quantitates. Adding the two Yorktown and two Congress class ships under construction will give the Americans an additional 32 13 inch guns, for a total of 64 13 inch and 32 12 inch guns.
By contrast, the Americans are much better off in stern chases, as every American capital ship in service or under construction boasts 8 heavy guns, configured in a superfiring pair forward and another superfiring pair aft. By contrast, only the four most recent British vessels – including the Courageous, which is still under construction, and once again excluding the two vessels of the unknown Queen Mary class – can fire a maximum of three guns forward or aft, while others can only fire two.
Regarding the Imperial Japanese Navy
Very little can be said about the Japanese navy, as their current capital ships are so inferior as to be irrelevant compared to the five under construction. I believe that I saw an intel report on these new ships of the Tsbuka class, but did not take a picture. From memory, they were armed exactly the same as the first super-dreadnought design I saw, the Varese class, which also has exactly the same displacement: 4 x 3 14 inch guns all mounted on the centreline, none of them super firing. If this is the case, then the Japanese line will end up with a broadside of 60 14 inch guns, but a maximum end-on firepower of 15 14 inch guns. Again, the Americans will therefore have a relative advantage in stern chases.
I hope that you will find this report interesting, and that it will inform our further discussion. My thoughts on the possible implications of my analysis will come in a follow – up post.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 4, 2019 9:39:33 GMT -6
Note: Since I've been considering the implications of these zones of immunity, it has occurred to me that I need to take the value of the deck armour more precisely into account.
As I understand it, any shell which penetrates the belt must also penetrate the deck, although not every shell which penetrates the deck must penetrate the belt. However, it is not simply a matter of adding up the two armour values, firstly because I assume that the value of the deck armour amounts to its effective thickness where it is vertical, but the effective thickness will be greater for a shell penetrating on a flat trajectory through the belt. On the other hand, as I understand it, the value of two successive plates of armour is always less than a single plate of the same weight would be.
All of my estimates about zones of immunity were made without taking the known deck armour of my own ships into account. Does anybody have a rough formula for calculating the effectiveness of a given amount of sloped deck armour against shells penetrating the belt? Do you, for example, add 50% of the deck armour's thickness to the belt, or 150% ? Since I don't know the relative impacts of the space between the armour making it less effective vs the incline of the sloped deck improving its performance against horizontal penetrations, either option seems equally valid to me.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 4, 2019 9:53:06 GMT -6
I would like to point out that the guns are not ahistorical, just opposite it is line with history.
Naval guns used - dates with the first commisioned ship with such a gun till 1925
1/1912 - 13.5" - UK Orion 3/1914 - 14" - USA Texas 11/1915 - 14" - Japan Fuso (but guns by Vickers) 12/1915 - 15" - UK Queen Elizabeth 2/1916 - 13.5" - France Bretagne 7/1916 - 15" - Germany Bayern 6/1917 - 18"- UK Furious 11/1920 - 16" - Japan Nagato 7/1921 - 16" - USA Maryland
Italy - 15" - planned and could be in 1917 if there were no war
So as you can see the RTW guns are not so late in relation to history, sometimes it is even opposite.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 4, 2019 10:09:30 GMT -6
I would like to point out that the guns are not ahistorical, just opposite it is line with history. Naval guns used - dates with the first commisioned ship with such a gun till 1925 1/1912 - 13.5" - UK Orion 3/1914 - 14" - USA Texas 11/1915 - 14" - Japan Fuso (but guns by Vickers) 12/1915 - 15" - UK Queen Elizabeth 2/1916 - 13.5" - France Bretagne 7/1916 - 15" - Germany Bayern 6/1917 - 18"- UK Furious 11/1920 - 16" - Japan Nagato 7/1921 - 16" - USA Maryland Italy - 15" - planned and could be in 1917 if there were no war So as you can see the RTW guns are not so late in relation to history, sometimes it is even opposite. And in this particular save: 1908 - 14" - UK Invincible While my current generation of ships is still being laid down with 13" guns just over a year after the USN switched to building battleships with 14" guns in real life. So in this particular save, it is true that the British are ahead of history, and I am behind. The statement of that fact is not a criticism of RTW, though. EDIT: Note also that in this save the British unlocked 15 inch guns in 1909 according to my intel reports, whereas historically is it often noted that Churchill rushed through the development of the 15" gun in order to introduce it in the Queen Elizabeth class, laid down in 1912.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 4, 2019 11:04:15 GMT -6
Frankly speaking if I look at your situation I think it need large change.
Your aliance with UK means nobody can oppose you and UK cannot be seen as threat for at least 5 years.
So it means you have a lot of ship with no value at all.
I would start cost saving program to allow large modernization of USN, so scrapping: - all pre-dreadnoughts - scrapping majority of armored cruisers and may be all of them as their value is dubious and they have no chance against battlecruisers. Rochesters has some value however they are to expensive for their capabilities as they are able to fight only CLs and there are too expensive
- scrapping all protected cruisers up to Charleston class. Frankly speaking I cannot see any value of relatively modern Baltimore class as they are slower than battleship. I would scrap them too. I can see value only for Denver and Mobile class
Note: I do not completely understand your past construction program as it seems to me you are building your fleet outside the world as your ships does not counter foreign designs and they are often out of box ,especially 6" guns armored cruisers as they are much more expensive than CLs but they are too powerfull to engage them (waste of money) and too weak to engage enemy armored cruisers.
I would suggest to buid: - new type of light cruiser for fleet duties and anti-raider duties as Denver class is too slow for both however it could be used as colonial cruiser - build a lot of battlecruisers with some possibilities: - 3x3x13" guns for future refit to 15-16" guns - 3x3x14" guns
note: I would use at least 4" guns, probably 5" guns as secondaries as 3" guns starts to be quite inefficient stopping larger destroyers
Especially as British battlecruisers are quite inferior and their armor is very weak. The rest nations can not outbuild you.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 4, 2019 13:04:10 GMT -6
Regardless of what the Almanac says about individual ships, all ships of the same class and refit are capable of attaining the same speed. If one of the Inconstants is good for 25 knots, so are the other four. Also be aware that the Almanac can mis-report the speeds of ships by at least several knots, though it's more often accurate to within one knot. That said, I'd be inclined to go with majority rule; if the Almanac says four are good for 24 knots and one is good for 25 knots, then I'd think it more likely that the class is good for 24 knots than 25.
You have the ability to order ships from Britain, so if you wanted to know the maximum quality of gun that they could have in service on their ships the game itself will tell you. All you need to do is take a bit of time to look at qualities of the available calibers in the design screen with their shipyard selected.
I believe that the game considers cobelligerents to be allied.
As to what to do going forwards, I'm inclined to agree with dorn. You are not likely to go to war in the near future - whether with Britain or anyone else - given your current tensions, so scrapping a number of your more obsolescent ships and getting to work on building a more modern fleet is probably a good idea. By the time the next war is likely to occur your old predreadnoughts and armored cruisers won't be worth much of anything anyways and will probably be more of a liability than an asset, especially if you're counting on being able to make use of superior speed to choose your engagements, and scrapping even just the eight oldest armored cruisers and the ten oldest battleships will free up around 2.5 million per turn; between that, your current surplus, and your reserve fund you could probably afford to lay down another pair of ~30,000t ~27kn battlecruisers or a pair of 30,000t ~24kn battleships immediately, or another eight or so cruisers like the Denvers, and unless you try to start something they'll probably all be in service before the next war starts. If you scrap all the predreadnoughts, all the semidreadnoughts, all the armored cruisers, and all the light cruisers but for the Denvers and the Mobiles, you'll have enough funds available for a pair of ~35,000t battleships or battlecruisers and about four ~28kn ~5000t CLs, and you'll have divested yourself of a bunch of obsolete ships that are likely to be little more than liabilities by the time the next war rolls around.
Beyond that, the other powers are probably going to start scrapping their own predreadnoughts, semidreadnoughts, armored cruisers, and older light cruisers within the next three years and will likely have scrapped the vast majority of them in six years. Getting rid of your own predreadnoughts, semidreadnoughts, armored cruisers, and older light cruisers might leave your fleet relatively weak right now - at least on paper - but by the time the next war starts you'll probably be well on your way to making up the difference through an advantage in modern ships and a lot of the ships that you might want to counter with your older warships will be gone.
As to triple turrets, if you're really concerned about the potential reliability issues, you could consider doing something like the historical Nevada configuration (3223 ABXY); it's lighter than 5x2 ABQXY or similar, gets you an extra gun or two over 4x2 ABXY or 3x3 ABY/ABL/ABQ, and keeps part of the main battery in the more reliable twin turrets rather than putting everything into the less reliable triple turrets.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 5, 2019 1:58:11 GMT -6
aeson dorn I tend to agree with your ideas about scrapping ships - I stopped the game to make this post immediately after concluding my latest war against Russia, and so intended to scrap a lot of these ships anyway but wanted to make my plans for future force structure before making a decision on the matter. Thanks to aeson , I know that the British are using Q-2 13 inch, Q-1 14 inch, and Q-1 15 inch guns. This is generally all good news - it means the 13 inch guns of the Tiger class are inferior to my own 12 inch guns, and the 14 inch guns of every other class are on par with my 13 inch guns. While certainly the best case scenario, that does not detract from the fact that under current construction programs, the numbers are as follows:
| British 14 inch / American 13 inch guns | British 13 inch / American 12 inch guns | British 15 inch guns | UK Now | 88 | 10 | 0 | US Now | 32 | 32 | 0 | UK Future | 88+ | 20+ | 0+ (Est. 16; 2 ships with 4x2?)
| US Future | 64 | 32 | 0 |
As for the future capital ship force - because current ships and current construction will give me a fleet of 3 21 knot BBs, 5 25 knot BCs, and 4 27 knot BCs, I think there are three roughly equal options which may be pursued going forward. It seems appropriate to me to to focus on adding to only of these squadrons so as to make it into a capable fleet for engaging the main enemy fleets. Deciding on what kind of new ships to build and how to build them must depend to some extent on the ships they will have to operate with. However, in the past, I have designed all of my sloped deck ships with the intention of providing them with enough belt armour to stop the expected enemy shells at a certain range. I only ever considered the deck armour to be a sort of 'bonus' to this. However, now it is important to calculate zones of protection in order to decide on the type and armour scheme of the new ships, I feel it's important to calculate how well the old ones are protected at various ranges, taking their sloped deck armour into account. aeson , you're always good with this sort of thing - in what way do you factor in sloped deck armour as an addition to the belt? If I make the assumption that the sloped deck can be added to the deck to calculate the level of 'minimally acceptable protection' (though not, of course, immunity) against horizontal penetrations at a given range, we can draw the following conclusions. With 9 inches on the belt and 2 inches on the deck, the Constellation class of two 25 knot BCs are probably not effectively protected from Q-1 14 inch guns at any range. With 9 inches on the belt and 2.5 on the decks, the Ranger class of 3 25 knot BCs may be effectively protected between about 15 - 18,000 yards. This is a rather narrow and distant zone of effective protection, and it may soon disappear with advances in AP tech. The two ships of the 21 knot New Mexicos class of battleships have 11.5 inches on the belt and 2 on the deck, and are therefore probably adequately protected at the moment at about 12,000 yards - though their slow speed means they cannot dictate the engagement range, and they are not safe at longer ranges. With 11 inches on the belt and 2.5 on the deck, the other 21 knot BB - the Connecticut - probably extends this zone of protection out to about 15,000 yards. With the same protection at 27 knots, the two Yorktown class BCs currently under construction can engage at the same ranges, and effectively dictate the range. Finally, the two Congress class BCs also at 27 knots are most definitely protected at 12,000 yards with 13 inches at the belt, but with only 2 inches on the deck they were designed to use their speed to dictate the range against enemies and close to their optimal engagement range. Now that I consider the effect of the sloped deck, this armour scheme was probably a serious mistake. More definite remarks can be made about speed. The 27 knot ships can use their speed to dictate the range, flee, pursue, and effectively harass the rear of the 24 knot British line by sailing in a zig-zag pattern to fire broadsides from behind them. The 25 knot ships can keep pace with the British, and can probably force an engagement but not effectively flee. The 21 knot squadron, of course, will rely on other vessels to attempt to draw in an enemy force. They also may be somewhat vulnerable to the British pre-dreadnoughts, whereas my BCs are fast enough to more or less ignore them.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 5, 2019 2:43:48 GMT -6
Some Thoughts on Scrapping, Construction, and Future Force StructureThe slow 2,100 ton cruisers that make up about half of my cruiser force originated in my most recent game as Germany as an attempt to cost-effectively fill tonnage on foreign stations. That all changed when one of my newly completed 2,100 ton colonial cruisers got caught up in Northern European waters with a few torpedo boat escorts against a force of two large Russian protected cruisers, each at least twice its size, and (from memory) several Russian destroyers. After a long stern chase, it became clear that it was only a matter of time until the ship was caught, so I had it turn around and charge the enemy to cover the torpedo boats' retreat. I was amazed when the little 2,100 ton ship proceeded to disable both of the much larger Russian vessels and escape relatively undamaged. In this game, I have attempted to experiment further with these 2,100 ton cruisers, using them as the main body of my cruiser force. The idea was that they didn't need to be able to outrun enemy CAs so long as I had superiority in my own armoured cruisers, because it seems rare that a CL will go up alone against a CA if there are friendly CAs available, and even if this does happen, a 2,100 ton cruiser is expendable. By sacrificing speed, they could be well armed and armoured enough to punch far above their weight; and in any case they were only one or two knots slower than most protected cruisers of other nations. Of course, BCs would inevitably make them obsolete - but a much larger 24 knot protected cruiser would be rendered just as obsolete, and so long as I maintained my position in the BC competition, they would still have adequate cover according to this doctrine. Of course, I didn't expect the game to be quite as battlecruiser - heavy as it is. Regarding the 6 inch gun CAs, dorn - they were intended to complement the 2,100 ton ships by killing the largest and most powerful enemy CLs and running away from stronger CAs. They were optimised for killing CLs, with the 6 inch battery and heavy enough armour to resist enemy 6 inch guns at very close ranges, allowing them to charge down and kill their enemies. However, as you can see, they turned out rather over-priced for such a small niche. The status of these old cruisers must effect the calculations for how the capital ship fleet is to be structured. If I choose to focus on BBs, thus ceding the BC competition, Britain (with its much larger force of CAs and CLs, all of which have a similar speed as my slow cruisers, as well as its dominant BC fleet) could effectively keep my existing cruiser fleet in port, and Japan could make life very difficult for me with its new BCs. I would have to rely on wearing down the enemy's BCs in a decisive fleet battle or series of battles in which everything has to go right before my cruisers could sail again. Furthermore scrapping the slow cruisers, will still leave me with the 6 Mobiles, which will be obsolete in their intended role as fleet scouts soon enough, and 5 Denvers, which were designed for 26 knots but only managed 25, and are therefore more or less just as vulnerable to 25 knot BCs as my older 2,100 ton vessels are, though at least they can operate with my own 25 knot BCs. In short, ceding the battlecruiser competition will require a rapid overhaul of the entire cruiser force. Of course, it is arguable that the cruiser force needs to be overhauled no matter what, so it's worth it. On the other hand, if the bulk of the older protected cruisers are retained, one possibility is to go full circle and use them to their initial role: colonial service ships, which can can cost-efficiently make up the tonnage in peacetime and operate more safely in wartime so long as they have adequate cover from a few BCs. New cruisers will still be needed, but I will be able to concentrate all the new CLs in the major theatres of war, where enemy BCs will be a bigger threat. This will be true regardless of whether or not I switch to a BB - focused force, though of course new, fast cruisers in the important theatres will be all the more important if I do decide to do so. As for the CAs - the two Constitution and two Rochester class vessels may likewise have a role to play, as they both exceed the speed of most BCs currently available. Together, a Rochester and a Constitution complement one another, and so between them these two classes could help to cover the quieter stations, freeing up BCs to be concentrated in the most important regions while retaining some ability to flee from enemy BCs, depending somewhat on the speed of the latest classes under construction for Britain and Japan. All other CAs should probably be scrapped. EDIT: As for the pre-dreadnoughts - again, the four Californias could probably find some use as a power projection squadron. Beyond that, I have to ask - if I were to switch to a BB - focused fleet, could I afford to have my 21 knot BBs have to worry about all the enemy pre-dreadnoughts that might still be around in a war any time between now and the turn of the decade? Then again, you could argue that my 14 pre-dreadnoughts will still not allow me to safely come under fire from the 30 British vessels, and that nobody else has enough pre-dreadnoughts to be a serious threat. Having said all of this, it seems to me that switching to a BB - centric fleet might be quite problematic, as it will require an even more urgent cruiser replacement programme and would make my strategy dependent on a lot of contingent factors, including the ability of the potential enemy's Bs to influence a fight between the dreadnoughts of either side. However, in terms of the capital ship competition, it may still be the most viable option.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 5, 2019 7:10:21 GMT -6
aeson , you're always good with this sort of thing - in what way do you factor in sloped deck armour as an addition to the belt? I only consider the thickness of the belt, because I don't know enough about how the game models the armor scheme to guess at how much the deck armor helps protect against belt penetrations.
Your only current foreign station requirements are 12,000 tons in Northeast Asia and 13,000 tons in Southeast Asia, and the only significant benefit I see in using some of your assortment of 19- to 22-knot cruisers to cover commitments in Northeast and Southeast Asia is that even losing a couple of them, say to a surprise attack or a more powerful modern cruiser, will probably cost fewer victory points than losing one of the Rochesters or Constitutions would. Otherwise, I don't really see much need for them; between the Rochesters, Constitutions, and Mobiles, you have more than twice the tonnage you need for Northeast and Southeast Asia combined - five Mobiles or a Rochester can cover Northeast Asia while the sixth Mobile and a Rochester, or a Constitution by itself, can cover Southeast Asia; whatever ships of these three classes aren't on station are more than sufficient force to cover the two stations while others get refitted. You'd save a bit of money using some of the old 2100t colonial cruisers instead of the Rochesters or Constitutions, but probably not enough to be worth anything, and the Rochesters and Constitutions are probably more capable of winning encounters with anything short of a battlecruiser than the old 19- to 22-knot cruisers are capable of surviving in the same scenario. Japan's probably the only power that's all that likely to have modern battlecruisers in Northeast or Southeast Asia with any regularity, and if you fight Japan you're probably not going to want your 19- to 22-knot cruisers in the region retarding the faster modern ships you're likely to deploy to the area to do the fighting. The 26- and 27-knot Mobiles, Rochesters, and Constitutions are probably at least more or less fast enough to work with the most modern part of the fleet for most of the next ten years.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 5, 2019 8:33:41 GMT -6
Fredrik W - can you enlighten us on the effects sloped deck armour of a given thickness has against horizontally penetrating hits? aeson - Agreed on the foreign station forces - I hadn't thought about using the Mobiles there. So, if we scrap all 19 - 22 knot protected cruisers and all sub 26 knot CAs, the only other question regarding scrapping and modernisation is the pre-dreadnoughts. What do you think about the implications of scrapping those for the 'battleship strategy?' If we don't count the deck armour at all towards the total for protection against horizontal penetrations, the outlook is rather bleak. None of the existing battlecruisers will have a zone of immunity against their British counterparts at any range. The two New Mexico class battleships may have a zone of immunity at a narrow range between 12,000 and 15,000 yards and the Battleship Connecticut at a narrow margin somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000 yards. Likewise, the four new ships may be alright at some unknown range between 12,000 and 15,000 yards. Most likely, none of this would be enough to offset the British advantage in firepower. In short, not counting the deck armour towards protection against horizontal hits would mean that the heavy relatively heavy investments that have been made so far in armour will be of limited use going forward; even the 21 knot battle line will not be a solid foundation on which to build. The one equaliser available to all ships built and under construction is their AB / XY turret configuration, which would make them relatively better off in stern chases. What does everybody think of all this? Edit: Replaced mistake: meant to say that none of the current American battlecruisers will have a zone of immunity, not that none of the current capital ships will.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 5, 2019 10:08:39 GMT -6
I would scrap all protected cruisers mentioned earlier and all armored cruisers.
Why do you want your older cruiser using argument that it is cheaper. Compare both options.
1. using old cruisers on foreign stations - you paid lower maintanence on modern cruisers (minimal) but you paid for all of your old cruisers 2. scrapping all older cruisers - you paid a little more for modern cruisers but you will not pay anything for old cruisers
You shoud ask yourself what should do your armored cruisers in next war? Your possible answer is fight in colonies. However I will ask you what would do your modern ships? I can tell, nothing as all other nations has no chance to your fleet. You should evaluate not fleet you have today but fleet you have in 3 to 5 years. You will be ahead of any nation except UK so your old ships would be easy target and only liability using your resources through all the years and getting you risk that enemy will sink them.
Related to battleships I would be not so worried as aeson as British capital ships lack armor a lot. But they have advantage in numbers so it needs to remedy. The solution is easy, you and UK have similar budget the war would be probably not real earlier than 5 years. It means you will probaby build all your current construction and another 6-10 capital ships. UK would be not able to build similar numbers if they have so much older ships and if you scrap your older ships drastically.
If you in your next war you have 6-10 modern capital ships it means that actual ships will be not in most prominent position so I would not worry so much about their weaknesses.
So main point is to maximalize your current budget to allow maximum construction program and this is only possible by scrapping your old ships.
UK 15"(-1) guns penetration: 12000 - 13.3/1.7 15000 - 12.2/2.5 20000 - 10.3/3.4 max. range - 20240
I would build ship with belt armor at least 14" with sloped deck and 3-3.5" deck armor, turret armor 16", 5" top. I try to design battlecruiser with 27 knots, 7x13" (A,B,Y), 14" belt, 2" BE, 3.5" deck, 16" CT, 16" turret, 5" turret top, 12x5" casemates with 2" armor, TDS level 2 - 33.400 tons, 122M. If you decrease speed to 21 knots, you can increase armor to 16" belt, 4" deck, 17" turret armor which is excellent protection.
This ship is only 10 % more expensive than your previous design however her protection is much better especially for ranges 12.000-20.000 yards. For such armored ship you will completely outclass British ships by large margin and probably anything in construction.
Summary:
Your fleet is so large that you do not need so much ships against any opponent except UK ==> maximum old ships should be scrapped even ones that is relatively new but absolute Your fleet cannot face UK, so you need larger modern ship than UK - you need maximum free budget for construction == > another point to scrap as much ships as possible - drastically
|
|