|
Post by yemo on Jun 26, 2019 13:20:42 GMT -6
I was now more thinking about Yatagan and Espingole classes in construction.
I think that they are not needed however some money has been already invested.
Having 71 ships for ASW duty is more than needed and on top another 12 under construction?
Relating to Espingole we have 23 destroyers for fleet duty. It is enough. However some losses could be in next war but new destroyers are quite expensive.
The Yatagans were intended be the very cost efficient backbone of the "non-tactical-combat" forces. So ASW and foreign stations. ASW alone, there may be too many for German subs alone - though still very cheap maintenance wise, 10 Yatagans cost as much as 1 Chasseloup Laubat. And Germany will likely build a lot more subs once you free them from the maintenance costs of their older capital ships.
Espingole class can be used to rapidly free the Germans from those capital ship maintenance costs, with 34knots and 12 torpedoes each. And for the same reason (and their good fire control), I bet that 2-3 of them can take on the new small german cruisers.
Imho it depends on whether you want to keep all the old and high maintenance 25knot cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 26, 2019 13:26:24 GMT -6
I was now more thinking about Yatagan and Espingole classes in construction.
I think that they are not needed however some money has been already invested.
Having 71 ships for ASW duty is more than needed and on top another 12 under construction?
Relating to Espingole we have 23 destroyers for fleet duty. It is enough. However some losses could be in next war but new destroyers are quite expensive.
The Yatagans were intended be the very cost efficient backbone of the "non-tactical-combat" forces. So ASW and foreign stations. ASW alone, there may be too many for German subs alone - though still very cheap maintenance wise, 10 Yatagans cost as much as 1 Chasseloup Laubat. And Germany will likely build a lot more subs once you free them from the maintenance costs of their older capital ships.
Espingole class can be used to rapidly free the Germans from those capital ship maintenance costs, with 34knots and 12 torpedoes each. And for the same reason (and their good fire control), I bet that 2-3 of them can take on the new small german cruisers.
Imho it depends on whether you want to keep all the old and high maintenance 25knot cruisers.
Yes, and this is reason why I probably will finish Yatagans as they are 4-5 months from it. Espingole has a lot of torpedo tubes but are inferior with guns. But it could be changed and adapted in future if it is needed.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Jun 26, 2019 13:48:36 GMT -6
The Yatagans were intended be the very cost efficient backbone of the "non-tactical-combat" forces. So ASW and foreign stations. ASW alone, there may be too many for German subs alone - though still very cheap maintenance wise, 10 Yatagans cost as much as 1 Chasseloup Laubat. And Germany will likely build a lot more subs once you free them from the maintenance costs of their older capital ships.
Espingole class can be used to rapidly free the Germans from those capital ship maintenance costs, with 34knots and 12 torpedoes each. And for the same reason (and their good fire control), I bet that 2-3 of them can take on the new small german cruisers.
Imho it depends on whether you want to keep all the old and high maintenance 25knot cruisers.
Yes, and this is reason why I probably will finish Yatagans as they are 4-5 months from it. Espingole has a lot of torpedo tubes but are inferior with guns. But it could be changed and adapted in future if it is needed.
That 3x5'' was a tough choice.
Against Austrias 5'' armed DDs it seemed that the forward firing guns had a much greater impact on the outcome than expected, like I would have traded a second forward gun for two rear guns. Comparable to the non double turret raider interceptor CLs with guns on 1 and 2 positions instead of an additional centerline gun. Eg the AV Azizeh.
It reminds me, I wanted to hear the general forums opinion on forward CL and DD armament, will have to open a thread for that.
|
|
|
Post by ninjapacman on Jun 26, 2019 15:48:19 GMT -6
Without having read through the posts, as I don't actually have much time at the moment, it would appear that somebody took over office. I hope they don't intend to post their tenure here, as this is the wrong thread for it.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 26, 2019 19:45:28 GMT -6
Replacing the 28kn plant with a 25kn plant also costs you 3 knots, and a bulged Variant C carries only two fewer aircraft than Variant E while having the same expected service speed and superior torpedo protection. Two aircraft more or less isn't a significant difference, so the only serious reservation I'd have about it as compared to Variant E is that a bulged Variant C is an extra ~35M over a 20-year service life (~26M over a 10-year service life), ~18M of which comes from the difference in conversion costs. I don't know that I'd actually take a bulged C over E since the conversion cost differential comes to about one third to one half of a decent-enough modern CVL's construction cost, but it'd at least be in the running whereas D is not; the superior torpedo protection from the bulges is to me much closer to being worth the extra cost than the single extra knot on D.
On the other hand, E isn't much more efficient and has higher absolute lifetime costs than either of the CVLs I drew up, and for the difference in conversion costs between Variants B and E you could build half the smaller or a third the larger CVL. If efficiency is what you want, I'd be unsurprised if converting Vosges to the Variant B standard to get the 8" CV out of the way and then replacing it a year or so after the conversion finished with a cheap 34-plane CVL laid down while Vosges was undergoing conversion worked out better than converting Vosges to Variant E - the 16,000t 34-plane CVL I drew up for comparison is by no means as cheap as it could be and still isn't that far off from being more efficient over an assumed 20-year service life even if you add in the cost to convert Vosges along the lines of Variant B and operate it as a CV for a year, and it'd already be cheaper in total.
While I'm inclined to agree that the 25-knot speed is problematic for Variant E's longevity, none of the other conversions seem much, if any, better in that respect, at least to me. Variant B has too few aircraft for its size and upkeep even after stripping out the 8" guns and Variant D's 26-knot speed is little if any better in practice than Variant E's 25-knot speed; only Variant C looks like it might have better longevity, with its 28-knot speed and an air group of ~40-41 planes (after stripping out the 8" guns) - probably a reasonable trade-off compared to Variant E's 25 knots and 40 aircraft (probably ~45-46 after stripping out the 8" guns), but it's still not anything like a good carrier for its size and would be more expensive to operate than E. Beyond that, all of the conversions dorn proposed only have TP1 and possible bulged conversions are at least two of slow, expensive, and lacking in aircraft capacity relative to the other possible conversions, and they'll probably all be somewhat lacking in heavy AA guns - especially if the main battery remains armored - after replacing the 8" main battery with a 4" DP main battery and stripping out the secondary batter for more aircraft.
For Variants C and D in particular, there's also the problem of justifying the initial conversion costs - you could build a new 28-29kn 34-plane CVL for about as much as it'd cost to convert Vosges to the C or D standard, and the CVL would cost about half as much to operate while giving 34 planes to C's 35 (41) or D's 38 (44). The initial conversion costs for B and E are at least significantly lower than the construction costs for pretty much any reasonable 28kn 34-plane CVL, and E has a decent enough air group to justify its higher operating costs.
Also, a quick table for cost comparisons: Dixmude and Arromanches are the 11,200t 25-plane 28kn and the 16,000 34-plane 29kn CVLs I threw together for comparison purposes and posted earlier.
Be aware that I did not include the cost of a midlife rebuild, factor in aircraft development costs, or assume any change in upkeep for the second ten-year period when calculating the lifetime costs, though upkeep for the air groups is included, and also that the costs given are as they appear in my copy of the game (v1.05) for a set of Variant B, C, D, and E conversions that I made to match the ones that dorn posted; if it's not a version issue then I don't know why the costs are slightly different, but for some reason they are.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 28, 2019 1:27:59 GMT -6
Relating this post I need:
1. new strategy against UK and USA. How we can deal with them if we are completely outnumbered. What fleet should we build if situation with these 2 naval superpowers deteriorate in 5 and more years
2. how many cruisers are needed against 3rd rank powers (Germany, A-H, Italy, Japan) and how large they should be
Any sugsestions from my staff and Admiral Yemo are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 28, 2019 5:48:25 GMT -6
Relating this post I need:
1. new strategy against UK and USA. How we can deal with them if we are completely outnumbered. What fleet should we build if situation with these 2 naval superpowers deteriorate in 5 and more years
2. how many cruisers are needed against 3rd rank powers (Germany, A-H, Italy, Japan) and how large they should be
Any sugsestions from my staff and Admiral Yemo are welcome.
Your best bet is brown-nosing both the US and the UK. Going to war with either will end in, at best, compromise peace unless you're VERY lucky. However, there are ways to even the odds though unhelpfully different strategies work for the different countries. Firstly, build submarines. A LOT of submarines. This applies to both the US and UK. Sinking merchant vessels will bring them to the table before they can smash your fleet is a must. Against the US, build a lot of small CLs/AVs as raiders with the same outcome. Base fast battleships in the Caribbean to prevent any unwanted invasions. You should beat the US by attrition as they don't have the base capacity in Northern Europe to maintain a blockade. Against Britain, you're slightly screwed at this point. If they aren't bashed back in the first few years, they run away with it. You can only hope for a quick war by submarine and raider. Invasions are probably inevitable. One thing you can do is make your fleet all fast enough to run away. Utilise land-based air forces heavy on TBs and MBs as soon as possible. Against second rate powers, light cruisers of about 6000t should suffice with a 6" battery. They must be fast (30+ knts) but should be able to fight even against distant Japan.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 28, 2019 6:51:58 GMT -6
Relating this post I need:
1. new strategy against UK and USA. How we can deal with them if we are completely outnumbered. What fleet should we build if situation with these 2 naval superpowers deteriorate in 5 and more years
2. how many cruisers are needed against 3rd rank powers (Germany, A-H, Italy, Japan) and how large they should be
Any sugsestions from my staff and Admiral Yemo are welcome.
Your best bet is brown-nosing both the US and the UK. Going to war with either will end in, at best, compromise peace unless you're VERY lucky. However, there are ways to even the odds though unhelpfully different strategies work for the different countries. Firstly, build submarines. A LOT of submarines. This applies to both the US and UK. Sinking merchant vessels will bring them to the table before they can smash your fleet is a must. Against the US, build a lot of small CLs/AVs as raiders with the same outcome. Base fast battleships in the Caribbean to prevent any unwanted invasions. You should beat the US by attrition as they don't have the base capacity in Northern Europe to maintain a blockade. Against Britain, you're slightly screwed at this point. If they aren't bashed back in the first few years, they run away with it. You can only hope for a quick war by submarine and raider. Invasions are probably inevitable. One thing you can do is make your fleet all fast enough to run away. Utilise land-based air forces heavy on TBs and MBs as soon as possible. Against second rate powers, light cruisers of about 6000t should suffice with a 6" battery. They must be fast (30+ knts) but should be able to fight even against distant Japan. I do not believe that submarines are way to go as submarine technology in French navy is terrible and would need investments of hundreds of millions.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 28, 2019 8:15:19 GMT -6
Your best bet is brown-nosing both the US and the UK. Going to war with either will end in, at best, compromise peace unless you're VERY lucky. However, there are ways to even the odds though unhelpfully different strategies work for the different countries. Firstly, build submarines. A LOT of submarines. This applies to both the US and UK. Sinking merchant vessels will bring them to the table before they can smash your fleet is a must. Against the US, build a lot of small CLs/AVs as raiders with the same outcome. Base fast battleships in the Caribbean to prevent any unwanted invasions. You should beat the US by attrition as they don't have the base capacity in Northern Europe to maintain a blockade. Against Britain, you're slightly screwed at this point. If they aren't bashed back in the first few years, they run away with it. You can only hope for a quick war by submarine and raider. Invasions are probably inevitable. One thing you can do is make your fleet all fast enough to run away. Utilise land-based air forces heavy on TBs and MBs as soon as possible. Against second rate powers, light cruisers of about 6000t should suffice with a 6" battery. They must be fast (30+ knts) but should be able to fight even against distant Japan. I do not believe that submarines are way to go as submarine technology in French navy is terrible and would need investments of hundreds of millions. Lots of small, permanent raiders then. If you are too far behind in tonnage, your only hope is a successful trade war. I suggest 3000t cruisers or AVs.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2019 9:06:07 GMT -6
If you are too far behind in tonnage, your only hope is a successful trade war. Winning a conventional war against an opponent with a significant numerical advantage is difficult due to all the ships that they have, but it's far from impossible, especially when they're not in the same sea zone - as would be the case in a war with the USA. I beat Britain by about 43,000 victory points as Chin China in a ~7-year war in the 1930s in Rule the Waves, for example, and they went into the war with about as many capital ships as I had surface combatants (not counting minesweepers).
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 28, 2019 9:43:54 GMT -6
Yes and it needs clear strategy how should be use about 1/3 of budget.
I have some ideas: - to have mainly carrier force which are adaptable, minimum land bases - to have fast ships - cruiser warfare, especially UK is quite vulnerable - hit fast, hard and run - as long as force is in range of several airfields and not covered by carrier force, run - night battles - cruisers armed with torpedoes, heavier protection of turrets
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Jun 28, 2019 10:40:26 GMT -6
Regarding research: Yeah, I should have focused more, especially once France caught up a bit. Machinery, armour and hull research should have been set to medium in the last year, so that more money could be spent on subdivision and damage control, fire control and ship design.
Regarding fleet development vs UK and US: My train of thought was, that the whole new fleet had to be fast enough to run away against superior opponents and instead defeat the superior enemy in detail. So no new capital ships below 30 knots and 28knot coal or 27knot oil minimum speed for carrier conversions.
Cheap 14million Vorarlberg/Vosges double conversion to 28knots coal & 32 planes after the 8x8'' intermediate refit. Then wait until purpose built carriers are available.
Two more powerful Dunkerque class battlecruisers/fast battleships, but waiting for the already announced "improved director" and "TPS4" research. This was one of my late concepts, leaving room for TPS 4. Alternative with 13.5'' belt (resulting in BB classification) but weaker top armour was also considered.
This would result in a very mobile 5 capital ships at 29/30 knots task force, supported by a 28knot, 32plane CAP/Torp Vosges depending on the enemy.
The 12'' turret fronts of the BB Napoleons made me really anxious for flash fires. I briefly considered converting the two Napoleons to CVs after the Vosges double refit would have dealt with the 8x8'' requirements. One version at 25knots, 69planes and 33 million, another version at 27knots and 60 million and the third version at 28knots plus bulging for torpedo defense (resulting in 25knots real speed) at 75 million. But with the bad game controls for early fleet support aircraft missions and the goal of a fast task force in mind, I considered the 25knot and 28knot + bulging versions too slow and the 27knot version too expensive and risky against torpedoes. To my shame I stopped there instead of considering the Austerlitz class ships for conversions, their cramped accomodations simply moved them to the "scrap as soon as possible" category in my head. This was the CV Napoleon 25knot version under consideration:
This 5+1 (or +3 if the Napoleons were converted to 27knot CVs) fast task force would have been great against the minor powers and fast enough to choose the fights against the two superpowers.
To break up enemy battlelines and thus allow engagements in detail even if more enemy capital ships are present, I went with the concentrated torpedo attack concept. Taking notes from alsadius , I thus considered extremely torpedo heavy DDs for suicide runs into enemy lines. But since relations with neither Britain nor the US were bad, I modified this pure mass torpedo carrier design to have value for gunfights as well (which were frequent against Austria).
The result was the Espingole class DDs currently under construction, 34knots, 3x1x5'' guns (two of them forward firing) and 18 torpedo tubes. One of the numerous ship designer bugs stole the medium AAs.
The one thing I was really unsure about, was the cruiser situation. Britain still lacks reliable training and elevation for <9'' gun turrets . That really threw me off from building some CLs or even small CAs in their yards when money was available again in mid 1924. France and the US still lack the superimposed B turrets. Not sure what to do there. I kept waiting for someone (UK, US, France) to make that crucial breakthrough and built some Yatagans and Espingole class DDs for foreign station and fleet duty instead.
To sum it up, my strategy against UK or US would have been to torp the enemy to death and defeat them in detail with a highly mobile task force. VPs by sinking the enemy fleet instead of a trade war. Though UK invasion opportunities would have made a war with them an extremely costly affair anyway.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Jun 28, 2019 18:12:17 GMT -6
Adding to the "concepts not realized":
While AV Azizeh has some capabilities to kill one of the numerous Austrian AMCs (2x6'' frontal guns and torpedoes to finish enemies off), there was another concept in that same direction as an emergency build against superior enemies (UK, US). A purely strategic and thus extremely cheap raider:
And a cheap, strategic "blockade and anti-invasion point increaser" DD based on the Yatagan superstructure:
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2019 20:09:25 GMT -6
To my shame I stopped there instead of considering the Austerlitz class ships for conversions, their cramped accomodations simply moved them to the "scrap as soon as possible" category in my head. An Austerlitz conversion would've looked something like one of these: A bit less expensive but also somewhat less capable than a Napoleon conversion and probably better than Vosges/Vorarlberg for service in home waters, though cramped accommodations would make an Austerlitz conversion a bit more iffy for overseas service.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 29, 2019 3:17:30 GMT -6
To my shame I stopped there instead of considering the Austerlitz class ships for conversions, their cramped accomodations simply moved them to the "scrap as soon as possible" category in my head. An Austerlitz conversion would've looked something like one of these:
A bit less expensive but also somewhat less capable than a Napoleon conversion and probably better than Vosges/Vorarlberg for service in home waters, though cramped accommodations would make an Austerlitz conversion a bit more iffy for overseas service. This is main reason I used Vosges. Another thing is he has long range, may be could be handy (very small advantage but you never know).
|
|