|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Apr 30, 2019 0:30:45 GMT -6
While gas turbines are bit off for the period, idea of combining diesels with regular fuel oil fired steam turbines was definitely there, most of the preliminary designs for Yamato featured this propulsion. The advantage of this setup would be to combine the advantages of diesels' cruising efficiency (since you don't normally need the steam turbines at cruising speed) and the weight efficiency of the turbines for fast steaming. There's some estimate for 5% increse in weight (cue in every one of those unreliable steam plants promising lots of power for little weight, such as the HOR engines of US fleet submarine fame) causing 10% reduction in machinery space and 30% reduction in fuel written in Skulski's book. For Japanese at the time this was probably a pipe dream, but Germans should have been able to do it in '30s, at least if they were willing to accept a smaller ship, as the ~50,000shp powerplants of the Pocket Battleships would have been usable for the task.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Apr 30, 2019 1:20:17 GMT -6
As I made clear in the other thread, nuclear power is impossible in RTW as it cannot be separated from nuclear weapons. If nuclear reactors existed, the same bright spark who came up with them would also have come up with weaponising them. In a game where all-out war is quite common, this would be inevitable. As this game is primarily a naval game, nuclear weapons would render the main units obsolete and therefore cannot and will not be included. Rubbish. There is always the possibility of engagement without the use of nuclear weapons. It is therefore easy to separate nuclear weapons from nuclear propulsion. I'd love to see an expansion that introduces Nuclear Propulsion. In a world where the whole purpose is to be at war with someone else, you're telling me that the same people who invented a controlled, power-yielding nuclear reaction in a reactor small and safe enough for submarine use (very difficult) did not think to give their nation unbeatable power by weaponising it??? The theory of at least an atom bomb is much simpler than that of building a commercially viable reactor.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Apr 30, 2019 4:34:01 GMT -6
The theory of at least an atom bomb is much simpler than that of building a commercially viable reactor. The theory does not equate to the economic practice. I think the show Stargate Atlantis had a nice quip summing up the problem: In particular, the last three words need attention. Weapons require extremely high grades while hydrogen bombs require even higher grades in even larger quantities. Reproducing these might not be *theoretically* complex but it's an enormous economic undertaking. And this terrifically large expense needs to be undertaken as a leap of faith unless you've already seen it in practice. It's not like building a computer processor where the capital investment can gradually ramp up over generations of more and more refined designs. The very first bomb requires an entire major industry. And even then it's no small commitment. The UK had hydrogen bombs but abandoned them due to the expense. France can afford them only by orienting their entire national economy around the production. Absent the unusual circumstances of WWII, where the US had enormous economic resources available for war but a shortage of means to weaponize them, it would have taken much, much longer for nuclear weapons to emerge. It's quite possible that they still wouldn't be economically viable even at a modern level of technology.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Apr 30, 2019 4:44:50 GMT -6
The theory of at least an atom bomb is much simpler than that of building a commercially viable reactor. The theory does not equate to the economic practice. I think the show Stargate Atlantis had a nice quip summing up the problem: In particular, the last three words need attention. Weapons require extremely high grades while hydrogen bombs require even higher grades in even larger quantities. Reproducing these might not be *theoretically* complex but it's an enormous economic undertaking. And this terrifically large expense needs to be undertaken as a leap of faith unless you've already seen it in practice. It's not like building a computer processor where the capital investment can gradually ramp up over generations of more and more refined designs. The very first bomb requires an entire major industry. And even then it's no small commitment. The UK had hydrogen bombs but abandoned them due to the expense. France can afford them only by orienting their entire national economy around the production. Absent the unusual circumstances of WWII, where the US had enormous economic resources available for war but a shortage of means to weaponize them, it would have taken much, much longer for nuclear weapons to emerge. It's quite possible that they still wouldn't be economically viable even at a modern level of technology. The same, however, is true for the nuclear reactors required for nuclear propulsion. A submarine reactor needs all of that major industry and is not, on the whole, going to win a war by itself. An atom bomb might. It is prohibitively expensive, but so is literally anything nuclear. If nuclear technology were to be implemented, the logical first step is the A-bomb. As RTW is a game of naval warfare, this would defeat the point of fighting. Therefore, no nuclear technology can be implemented without compromising realism, which is personally one of its greatest attractions. Edit: The UK still maintains thermonuclear capability and warheads for the trident missile. This is achieved alongside every other military asset with a budget of the equivalent of $45bn. Nuclear weapons are maintainable under smaller budgets provided the infrastructure is in place.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Apr 30, 2019 6:27:01 GMT -6
The same, however, is true for the nuclear reactors required for nuclear propulsion. A submarine reactor needs all of that major industry No it does not. The material requirements are fundamentally different. $...........46,000: budget for Chicago Pile-1: prototype of a stable nuclear reaction. $2,000,000,000: budget for Manhattan project: prototype for a nuclear weapon. And that ratio of 20,000 actually understates the cost of the Manhattan project in two regards. Firstly quite a few expenses were outside the budget because they just fell under general wartime activities or patriotic motivations making people work for a pittance under adverse conditions. Secondly nuclear weapons had very little effectiveness without ICBMs and ICBMs were by themselves considerably more technically challenging then nuclear engines. The V-2 project cost twice what the Manhattan project did and killed more people in Germany then in England. It wasn't until more then a decade later after an entire technological generation of redevelopment had replaced every aspect of the rocket, fuel, guidance, motor principles, that an acceptable long range missile existed.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Apr 30, 2019 7:10:49 GMT -6
In general I would concur with the argument that if you were at war, developing an atomic weapon would be the higher priority than creating a nuclear propulsion plant. Particularly since you have to be concerned that the opponent could be developing a weapon of his own which was one of the primary motivators behind the Manhattan Project.
However, I could see a case in peace time for the propulsion plant to be developed first or simultaneously with a weapon.
One of the differences between nuclear propulsion plants and atomic weapons is that you don't need to enrich the uranium as much to use it for a stable, heat generating reaction. The original S2W core for Nautilus was enriched to 20% U-235. The core used in the first refueling was increased to 40% U-235 since production capability had improved in that time frame*. Modern American submarines use weapons grade enriched uranium (>85% U-235) so that the cores can last the life of the hull (approximately 30 years).
So, if your bottleneck is producing U-235, you can save up material to complete a couple of bombs or you can build several reactor power plant cores. In that case, the submarines may be more decisive and useful if tensions are rising with a possible adversary but you don't own any strategic airfields in range of the future enemy.
Although technically I'm a No on the idea, if the developers really wanted to add it for whatever reason but didn't want to include atomic weapons you could just call it a variable tech scenario where weapons grade U-235 is very difficult to produce and the technical difficulties of a plutonium implosion-type device (e.g. Fat Man) have proven to be unsolvable.
*Just for reference, the first refueling overhaul started in early 1957, just over 2 years after its first underway. The ship had steamed 62,562 miles in that two years. It would have taken over two million gallons of diesel fuel for an equivalent diesel-electric boat.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 30, 2019 7:21:26 GMT -6
While gas turbines are bit off for the period, idea of combining diesels with regular fuel oil fired steam turbines was definitely there, most of the preliminary designs for Yamato featured this propulsion. The advantage of this setup would be to combine the advantages of diesels' cruising efficiency (since you don't normally need the steam turbines at cruising speed) and the weight efficiency of the turbines for fast steaming. There's some estimate for 5% increse in weight (cue in every one of those unreliable steam plants promising lots of power for little weight, such as the HOR engines of US fleet submarine fame) causing 10% reduction in machinery space and 30% reduction in fuel written in Skulski's book. For Japanese at the time this was probably a pipe dream, but Germans should have been able to do it in '30s, at least if they were willing to accept a smaller ship, as the ~50,000shp powerplants of the Pocket Battleships would have been usable for the task. I believe that had they been pursued, the inventions and technology was available but the gas turbines would not have been modular like the US Navy's models. They could have used liquid natural gas, and the Germans had plenty of that gas in Germany, if I remember. The problem is during wars, especially if you are being bombed, its really hard to pursue this kind of technology especially since Hitler wasn't interested in the Kriegsmarine.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Apr 30, 2019 7:36:41 GMT -6
The same, however, is true for the nuclear reactors required for nuclear propulsion. A submarine reactor needs all of that major industry No it does not. The material requirements are fundamentally different. $...........46,000: budget for Chicago Pile-1: prototype of a stable nuclear reaction. $2,000,000,000: budget for Manhattan project: prototype for a nuclear weapon. And that ratio of 20,000 actually understates the cost of the Manhattan project in two regards. Firstly quite a few expenses were outside the budget because they just fell under general wartime activities or patriotic motivations making people work for a pittance under adverse conditions. Secondly nuclear weapons had very little effectiveness without ICBMs and ICBMs were by themselves considerably more technically challenging then nuclear engines. The V-2 project cost twice what the Manhattan project did and killed more people in Germany then in England. It wasn't until more then a decade later after an entire technological generation of redevelopment had replaced every aspect of the rocket, fuel, guidance, motor principles, that an acceptable long range missile existed. The Chicago Pile (CP) cost $2.7m (c. $37m today) and was built in 1942. Therefore, the "patriotic" economic benefits are constant for both the Manhattan Project (MP) and CP. CP was also part of the MP, required for the bomb. It was designed to make plutonium-239 for the bomb. It does not generate electricity and is not by any means safe enough for a submarine. They had a 3 man "suicide squad" ready to douse it if the reaction ran out of control. Not something you want in an enclosed pressurised coffin with a hundred men. However, submarines need steam to function and this reactor could not be remotely controlled to generate steam. The first 'safe' nuclear submarine was not in operation until 1955, a full 10 years after the Trinity test. I will admit that ICBMs made the nuclear weapon much more useful but the simple free-fall bombs dropped on Japan were enough to force the almost immediate and total surrender of a nation where the culture forbade dishonourable surrender. Quite powerful enough to wipe out any battlefleet on the planet. The issues and costs of independently producing marine reactors of peacetime would mean that even the most enthusiastic navy would give it up as a bad job, at least in the time line of RTW 2
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Apr 30, 2019 8:17:15 GMT -6
The Chicago Pile (CP) cost $2.7m (c. $37m today) Not to establish **viability**. They didn't need the entire two year program just to prove that exothermic nuclear reactions were feasible. Incremental investment would be effective and the costs were small enough that some degree of military interest was inevitable. That is very different from the enormous leap of faith that the Manhattan project represented. I will admit that ICBMs made the nuclear weapon much more useful but the simple free-fall bombs dropped on Japan were enough to force the almost immediate and total surrender of a nation where the culture forbade dishonourable surrender. Quite powerful enough to wipe out any battlefleet on the planet. The Japanese circumstances were extremely unusual and that was not the expectation when they started the atomic bomb project.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Apr 30, 2019 8:51:11 GMT -6
Not expected, yes. Unusual? Being pedantic, 2 bombs dropped in anger, 1 unconditional surrender. 50% is not unusual. The fact of the matter is that only 2 bombs were ever dropped in anger so we don't exactly know what effect a nuclear bomb generally has. My prediction would be that 2 bombs would always be enough to force surrender in a nuclear power-non nuclear power war (ignoring MAD); one to scare the population and/or destroy critical command structure, one to prove it's a recurring possibility. In such a war as those in RTW, atomic weapons would always ensure the target capitulates. The only reason why that didn't happen in the real world was that several countries developed the capability before tensions boiled over into war. In that scenario, MAD takes over.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Apr 30, 2019 9:27:12 GMT -6
Coming from a bit different angle, regardless of how much it costs, how viable it is, touching exact figures. To quote bcoopactual's earlier comment on nuclear-powered submarines, it's a gamechanger. Now, if I think about it, RtW1 is already a bit shaky, as while one could make an argument for large-scale fleet engagement(s) present in the Great War (and I don't mention limited-scale wars on purpose), in my mind I always envisioned the title as something "optimized for Tsushima", or say, '15. ...not quite for 1925. Now we get air force, and it will be handled by the game very elegantly, I am sure of it (after all, that's what the whole spiel is about), but it will be very interesting to see how much dominance will the air aspect gain over the classic surface units. Either way, it will be a massive change. Now throw in nuclear technology, and you either gain... not horribly much in terms of gameplay, or the polar opposite, a paradigm shift.
To put it this way, I just find it hard to imagine how RtW-esque battles happen in a game where nuclear-powered submarines for example are a thing. It's kind of the Next Big Thing, that coupled with warfare beyond visual range still determines today's expectations, and if it's implementation is half-*ssed, for example, it's an "extra long range" option - then what's the point? However, if it IS a massive technology, then it kind of puts RtW2's entire premise in brackets. This is exactly why I find for example missiles sound interesting in RtW2, but I don't expect them to truly reach beyond their infancy or have a major impact (hopefully). As such, in my book - as I think about it currently - RtW2 will, to refer to my earlier sentence, model "1925" (or '40 for that matter) extremely well, but not quite 1950. So, no atom splitting is completely fine for me - not because all of these new techs aren't interesting, but because personally I think they would require an RtW3. In my book, these are esentially the markers of a new age, and as RtW1 would look odd with some weird early aircrafts cramped in without a clear role or place really, so would nuke' in RtW2. But of course, as all this is subjective opinion, I fully understand if someone else's opinion to the above is simply "I disagree".
Edit: Just to express myself maybe more clearly: I oppose the idea based on the opinion that RtW presents not some kind of date (~1950, ~1955 etc.), but a... how to say, a technological-doctrinal ecosystem.
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Apr 30, 2019 9:55:52 GMT -6
I oppose the idea based on the opinion that RtW presents not some kind of date (~1950, ~1955 etc.), but a... how to say, a technological-doctrinal ecosystem. Now I really want that 1871 start date. It'd be an almost pure battleship parade for the first couple of decades, when "colonial cruiser" meant a slow unarmoured wooden or iron sloop, "fleet scout" was another term for a battleship in virtual absence of fast cruising ships and "jeune ecole" meant wooden launches with spar torpedos.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Apr 30, 2019 11:28:50 GMT -6
I oppose the idea based on the opinion that RtW presents not some kind of date (~1950, ~1955 etc.), but a... how to say, a technological-doctrinal ecosystem. Now I really want that 1871 start date. It'd be an almost pure battleship parade for the first couple of decades, when "colonial cruiser" meant a slow unarmoured wooden or iron sloop, "fleet scout" was another term for a battleship in virtual absence of fast cruising ships and "jeune ecole" meant wooden launches with spar torpedos. The kind of mechanics describing aircraft in RTW 2 might be appropriate for ships in that time period. In particular given that there would be a whole bunch of auxiliary cruisers. All of the stats would be very vague until the ships actually see action and they might only be in service for six months.
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Apr 30, 2019 12:28:16 GMT -6
Now I really want that 1871 start date. It'd be an almost pure battleship parade for the first couple of decades, when "colonial cruiser" meant a slow unarmoured wooden or iron sloop, "fleet scout" was another term for a battleship in virtual absence of fast cruising ships and "jeune ecole" meant wooden launches with spar torpedos. The kind of mechanics describing aircraft in RTW 2 might be appropriate for ships in that time period. In particular given that there would be a whole bunch of auxiliary cruisers. All of the stats would be very vague until the ships actually see action and they might only be in service for six months. I think that would violate one of the basic principles of RTW series which is ship design. Perhaps there could be occasional public, political or internal navy pressure where you get forced with something truly silly, to get into the spirit of things. Obsolescence was only a bigger issue than in 1900-'10 when a ship languished under construction for better part of a decade (which did happen more often than it should have, granted). Overall you can identify few coherent development periods, and for most part they aren't really shorter than the reign of mature pre-dreadnoughts from circa Majestic class onwards.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Apr 30, 2019 12:59:34 GMT -6
The kind of mechanics describing aircraft in RTW 2 might be appropriate for ships in that time period. In particular given that there would be a whole bunch of auxiliary cruisers. All of the stats would be very vague until the ships actually see action and they might only be in service for six months. I think that would violate one of the basic principles of RTW series which is ship design. Perhaps there could be occasional public, political or internal navy pressure where you get forced with something truly silly, to get into the spirit of things. Obsolescence was only a bigger issue than in 1900-'10 when a ship languished under construction for better part of a decade (which did happen more often than it should have, granted). Overall you can identify few coherent development periods, and for most part they aren't really shorter than the reign of mature pre-dreadnoughts from circa Majestic class onwards. While the mechanics may are already be in the game, the big problem is how to set the boundaries on what is legit and what not - RTW already makes some historical designs not legal due to enforce proper tech progression rather than player instantly going to most efficient designs. For the period before 1900 it would be much, much bigger problem as all designs were tried and some worked while other did not, in fact some of those that worked later were initially refused due to luck or conservatives in rule, or lack of tech to capitalise on ideas. You may also add the wrong ideas from the last battle in this period (1866, Lissa) where more technologically advanced navy was soundly defeated.
|
|