|
Post by brygun on Jun 8, 2019 9:29:49 GMT -6
A post of not a raider. This design is envisioned as a fleet's aviation support. It is early in the aviation technology. Catapults have not yet come up. The airplane count is 16 to account for a few unavailable and still have ~12. Each auto search arc is 20 degrees so this could be trimmed in alternates. There is also the possibility of 4-8 being kept out of a search to be a low quality bombing group. The main gun choice of 9 inch is influenced by having 9"/+1q guns. The gun tech avail is 8"/0; 9"/+1; 10"/-1; 11"/-1. Thus bigger wouldnt get much while smaller is questioned for range during escapes. 8"/0 was declined on due to the double jump for the 9"/+1. Likewise those are 3"/+1 guns for the anti-destroyer weapons. Armor of 3.5" rates it as a CA. Largely this was because game coding. 9" isn't allowed on a CL and this is the min armor for a CA. Torpedo protection 1 is present. Production plans are to have one with main battle fleet for the most important sea zone. Possibly a second for a second sea zone of interest which might be defending the home waters. A third is possible to manage damage or unavailability. It is also a plausible candidate converting to a light carrier. So far the first action was a surprise raid at night (with myself as the IJN). This meant the planes were not an option. Oddly this showed that it could still act as the battle line scout by simply being a cruiser. Its very high speed (for this era), moderate hitting power in good but few main guns and armor suitable for resisting destroyer guns. Counterpoint: Airplanes can group easily. A pair of smaller vessels might be able together to fly a similar search pattern while providing two ships for the forward search line. Pending actual design work the other features like the main guns and torpedo protection don't scale well to smaller ships. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 8, 2019 9:34:21 GMT -6
I can see 2 issue using floatplanes are main source of scouting: - small range - if this tactic is not used there is no need to have high quality scout and resources can be used for other types of aicrafts
Good point on the research aspect. RTW2 doesn't yet really set up for over the horizon actions that a CV/CVL with torpedo or dive bombers could execute. Float planes do sit in an unusual niche. Able to be used on any non-specialized ships for scouting and raider assistance.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 8, 2019 10:05:35 GMT -6
Thought to comment on the real life historics a bit.
The idea of using planes that could launch and take off from the water did continue and played a huge role in situations like the Battle of Midway. It wasn't what we call float planes though. The flying boats can be thought of as making full use of the water runway concept. In their case being the size of a watercraft, boat, that is in the air rather than a small plane with water handling of two kayaks.
In RTW2 one does have the option of using floatplanes at airbases. That is quickly over whelmed by the longer range of the flying boats and their larger bomb loads.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 8, 2019 10:26:49 GMT -6
A post of not a raider. This design is envisioned as a fleet's aviation support. It is early in the aviation technology. Catapults have not yet come up. The airplane count is 16 to account for a few unavailable and still have ~12. Each auto search arc is 20 degrees so this could be trimmed in alternates. There is also the possibility of 4-8 being kept out of a search to be a low quality bombing group. The main gun choice of 9 inch is influenced by having 9"/+1q guns. The gun tech avail is 8"/0; 9"/+1; 10"/-1; 11"/-1. Thus bigger wouldnt get much while smaller is questioned for range during escapes. 8"/0 was declined on due to the double jump for the 9"/+1. Likewise those are 3"/+1 guns for the anti-destroyer weapons. Armor of 3.5" rates it as a CA. Largely this was because game coding. 9" isn't allowed on a CL and this is the min armor for a CA. Torpedo protection 1 is present. Production plans are to have one with main battle fleet for the most important sea zone. Possibly a second for a second sea zone of interest which might be defending the home waters. A third is possible to manage damage or unavailability. It is also a plausible candidate converting to a light carrier. So far the first action was a surprise raid at night (with myself as the IJN). This meant the planes were not an option. Oddly this showed that it could still act as the battle line scout by simply being a cruiser. Its very high speed (for this era), moderate hitting power in good but few main guns and armor suitable for resisting destroyer guns. Counterpoint: Airplanes can group easily. A pair of smaller vessels might be able together to fly a similar search pattern while providing two ships for the forward search line. Pending actual design work the other features like the main guns and torpedo protection don't scale well to smaller ships. I would say that the ship you have there gives up way too much for its aircraft to be worth building as a non-raiding cruiser - two 9" and a dozen 3" guns is not a worthwhile armament and 26 knots is quite slow for a mid-1910s or later cruiser; this is a ship that probably dies to something less than half its displacement in a gun fight, and the game doesn't have a way to say that such-and-such a ship should only be deployed as part of the fleet rather than by itself. I would far sooner go with a cruiser-style AV or with a more normal cruiser carrying a smaller complement of floatplanes than with a virtually-unarmed cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 8, 2019 15:10:51 GMT -6
I would say that the ship you have there gives up way too much for its aircraft to be worth building as a non-raiding cruiser - two 9" and a dozen 3" guns is not a worthwhile armament and 26 knots is quite slow for a mid-1910s or later cruiser; this is a ship that probably dies to something less than half its displacement in a gun fight, and the game doesn't have a way to say that such-and-such a ship should only be deployed as part of the fleet rather than by itself. I would far sooner go with a cruiser-style AV or with a more normal cruiser carrying a smaller complement of floatplanes than with a virtually-unarmed cruiser. Quite likely true. I was trying out an alternative approach. This game Im running at 70% tech advance rate. Even with that I've only had it sailing a year so before I got the tech to build a CVL, which means torpedo planes. It will take 2 years to build. The window of opportunity for the ship above has turned out to be really narrow at ~3 years. I was hoping for more like 5-10 years of use of this technology. Might bring them in on a rebuild either to CVL or to have lots of bigger secondaries. If I were to design it again Id probably manage it ~8000 tons with 8 planes or keep it at ~10,000 tons with that ~8 planes and beef up its guns. 8 planes meaning reliably having 6 to fly a 120 degree search thus covering 60 degrees off the fleets original course on a tactical map. Side note: This approach has the side affect of not needing to put float planes on the B, BB and BC ships as the Cruiser Floatplane or Cruiser Aviation focuses that role on it. The idea of a fleet scout that is aviation by day and mild mannered cruiser by night does seem worth exploring. The alternative being 2 small CLs (which may or may not have ~1 float plane) being assisted by a moderate AV ship with ~4-6 planes.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 8, 2019 15:55:45 GMT -6
General note and warning:
Upon planning conversion of the recent CFP found that the game doesn't allow repositioning 9 inch guns but 8 inch guns can be juggled around. The centerline guns will have to go as centerline not allowed with a flight deck.
Was able to:
10,000 tons 12 planes with flightdeck 8" guns in the four corners (positions 1,2,3,4) for 2 guns bearing at all times secondaries (10% ROF penalty due to number but that appears acceptable) the mild armor with 3.5" belt Surprisingly: deck torpedo swivel mounts on the sides (dont show well graphically but would be under the flight deck)
edit: Alternate: For every 2 planes and 2 3" guns removed add 2 8" single mounts broadside ( 1 to each side)
Makes a possible weird creation of a scout carrier cruiser of 8 of 8" with 8 torpedo planes
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 8, 2019 17:35:52 GMT -6
Catapults were researched so the CFP Sakura was to come in for a refit for those anyway. It was also time to fit improved fire control. Reducing the air group from the ambitious 16 to more reasonable number allowed the secondary guns to be jumped up tremendously. From 3" to 6" and in full turrets. This was related to the feedback from aeson. The main gun armor was also bumped up. The hull and deck cant be changed so are still in the vs destroyers mode but that is likely okay for a scout If I were to freshly build them I would focus more on double fore/aft turrets. Given that those really can't change the big jump in the secondaries makes it much more capable in night time combat. I think the 8 air group is a better fit for a fleet scout. 6 x 20 degrees = 120 degree search with a few to spare for reliability. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 8, 2019 21:05:33 GMT -6
AAR for the Cruiser Float Plane with the better secondaries
Fleet Battle Sent out recon scouts. Switched to screen the battleships. Had an enjoyable day. Pretty much just sailed around. Once enemy survivors broke off the action attempted a naval strike by float plane with no results. No major defects to report.
Cruiser Battle 2 of the Cruiser Float Plane spawned a tactical battle with two light cruisers of 5,500 tons. Out massed them 2 to 1 so they kept fleeing. Had enough recon to keep their course known. Had enough speed to nudge them into range. The long range bow gun plinked away eventually getting speed damage allowing the brutal secondary broadsides to come into play. CLs mauled quickly at that point. Enemy CLs did fire back to little affect, a combination of their minimal guns and the armored cruiser baseline.
Did experiment with sending out Naval Strikes. Did not see an impact of the "spot" rating. My impression is Im not sure floatplanes would be limited this way. With 2 catapult on board I did succeed in ready and launch strike sizes of 1, 2 and 5. The 5 being way over. Deficiency in that the float planes failed to make an attack. The group of 5 reported starting an attack then aborting due to low fuel. These are early float planes and had been given the Heavy bombload option. Future efforts might stick to the Medium bomb load as all we really need is to slow the light cruisers down for our ship to catch up.
It is believed that against a heavier foe the Cruiser Floatplane ought to run. The long range of the stern gun giving chances to do speed damage to a chasing enemy and thus allowing a disengagement.
Design ended up having 9 float planes. Seems a decent number to have lots of spotting option. 6 would be lower number but still acceptable quantity of planes to do various search arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by polyarmus on Jun 9, 2019 2:19:11 GMT -6
Ive been trying experiments with bomb capable float planes. Didnt know about the search bug so that seems to be part of my struggles. There are problems with the auto search like how it grabs many planes and unless you absolutely remember in every battle those floatplanes fly out on recon. This makes it hard to keep a reserve of floatplanes for bombing strike. Ive made designs which are float plane raiders using AV as the base hull rather than AMC. Cost more but dont disappear when a war ends. IIRC one came in at ~4,500 tons with 6 inch guns in 1,2,3,4 (the two forward and two aft corners), 3-5 floatplanes in a seaplane hanger (representing the plane being lowered into the merchant cargo hold) and auxiallary features. A fair speed is possible as you arent limited to the AMC speed restriction. Im in a battle right now so cant load the design to show. AV planes as a raider actually seems to go well. The planes give a bonus to the raider function. The speed helps escape which you should always try to do with these. The amount of merchants intercepted seems fair. I imagine the floatplanes being 1 undergoing maintenance or spares. 1-2 flying long range recon and 1-2 flying bomb loaded shorter recon or awaiting the launch signal. This would have some chance of damaging or inspiring smaller merchants. Either way once the AVR (Aviation Vessel Raider) is shooting the merchant may radio for help and the planes give a long advance warning of incoming ships to run away, at that better speed. Almost all my CL and CA carry 1 or 2 float planes for fleet recon. My BC, BB and B might carry 1 or might not. I do look at the plane and hanger being a fire risk. The B+ types almost never go into a fight without CL or CA which in my fleet have floatplane scouts. In carry battles, assuming i remember at the start to block the auto search, I manually ready and launch the floatplanes in a search wave. The carriers are intended to save their attack planes once a target is located. Fighters flying CAP, escort or may be used as recon as even in the mid-air campaign I havent seen much air to air combat. A while ago I argued that a CVL would make for a fantastic raider, but I think a seaplane carrier would do just as well. My point of view was that a wing of torpedo bombers would make it so any intercepting ship larger than a destroyer has to have air cover or be in extreme danger. I wouldnt be so optimistic about it. One of my CVLs intercepted enemy raiding CA (situation could have been easily opposite, should the CVL be on raiding duty). Result was predictible - I have not even managed to launch single plane, before the CVL become smoking wreck.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 9, 2019 11:01:00 GMT -6
I wouldnt be so optimistic about it. One of my CVLs intercepted enemy raiding CA (situation could have been easily opposite, should the CVL be on raiding duty). Result was predictible - I have not even managed to launch single plane, before the CVL become smoking wreck. CVL raider and CVL interceptor will very much depend on getting that first flight off. In the ages we play night flight ops aren't a thing so a night time or stormy weather battle nulls the torpedo plane strength. I have at least some guns on a CVLR (CVL raider) for that vulnerability. Usually a stern gun in 3, 4 or both so that the fleeing CVL can drop shots at the pursuer in hopes of slowing them down faster than their guns slow us down. Hence I use 8" or bigger to out range a 6" CL with shrine offerings to not be intercepted by a CA or BC. >>>> Ive been running the current campaign with mostly CLR as I had to build CL in the pre aviation age and retrofitted them at least one floatplane, preferably with a hanger, when planes were invented. Having ~12+ raiders at ~4,000 - 5,000 tons has meant missing upto 60,000 tons of other ships (like 3 x B or 2 x BC). My wars have often been very short. So short that purchasing AMC for raiding would barely get started before the AMC would be lost to post-war clean up. Experimenting now with that CAFP with 3.5" armor and a medium gun (in this case 9"/q1 'cause other options didnt stack up well at the time of design)
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 9, 2019 11:58:29 GMT -6
AAR
Ship: CAFP with the improved secondary, supported by a screen of ~4 destroyers
Mission: Land bombardment of a target pretty much at the center of minefield circle, possibly not even reachable by the main cruiser guns (9"/+1q)
Enviroment: winds okay for flying but night coming on and will impact landing of aircraft
An over the horizon air strike of 9 floatplanes were launched in 4x2 plane strikes plus 1 solo to keep within the posted "spot" rating. (note prior battle suggests this isnt needed but this was followed in this fight). 9 planes reached the target with heavy bombs scoring exactly zero hits observed. Ships returned with 2 okay, 6 damaged and 1 destroyed. The loss probably a crash for landing at night.
With planes not operable at night and there being no visibility for shore bombardment, assuming there even was gun range, the CAFP and DD then sat far off shore during the night.
The enemy defense squadron stumbled across us. Consisted of 2 x CA, 1 x CL and a few DD. Definitely a superior gun force. Due to the initial night ranges being so short there was a scramble of activity. In that the CFP took a torpedo hit. Having been built with torpedo protection system one (TPS 1) she didnt sink but was now limited to 14 knots. We were able to disengage getting a torp hit (and later sink) on their CL. It was unclear if the enemy CA force was now retreating or just happened to sail to far away for night observation.
The force re positioned to the south hoping that at dawn a limited air group, perhaps 3-4 with repairs to damaged planes, could try again to bomb the target.
Shortly before dawn the enemy squadron stumbled upon us again. Guns of all types were put to use, DDs make a torpedo dash scoring a torp hit on an enemy CA.
CFP, limited in speed from the night's torpedo damage, ran a long way north west dropping the odd 9" hit on the chasing CA who was firing back with 2x8" front turret not seeming to score hits back. However, ammunition was running out and the enemy CA wasn't being slowed. At least not anywhere to the half speed needed to escape on the CFP's torp damage speed.
One readied floatplane was launched on a naval strike with it not being sure if it attacked nor hit in the message spam.
With the rear turret (one gun) emptying the DDs made their fatal charge to drive off the CA. One DD even being rammed a enemy CA amid the efforts for short range attacks.
With sunlight fully up they died without the range having been opened enough for the limping CAFP to get out of visual contact.
CAFP seeming out of other options turned to give battle with secondaries and the relatively full forward turret. Both enemy CA were in proximity. The torp and/or ram damaged CA seeming to have made enough repairs to catch the limping CAFP.
After swirls of gunfire surprisingly the CFP was able to break contact with the enemy.
Able to make only about 8 knots the CAFP was sailing away waiting for the end of battle. The battle counter being a few hundred above the normal limit and no ships reported in sight.
The message came up of the CAFP foundering in the seas.
*sigh*
Observations:
= Contact could have been broken off after the night torpedo hit = Tonnage wise the CAFP was fighting at a 1:2 disadvantage which alternative designs would have also had difficulties = Partly to continue the mission, as there was at least some planes possible of hitting the land target, and to test the CAFP concept the battle had been continued = Float plane ground strikes with a moderate number of planes, 9 in this case, weren't effective. = Float plane damage from landing at night was pretty bad with 2/3 the force out of action. = The armored nature of the CAFP actually put up with a lot of damage from twice her number of CA and a torpedo hit
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 9, 2019 15:38:35 GMT -6
AAR and hopefully not just talking to myself :-P
A sister ship of the same class and rebuild CAFP was given a land bombardment mission in the daytime. No major warships fielded by the enemy so I was able to conduct a fairly well controlled floatplane experiment.
It has two catapults so it appears catapults/spot does not affect the size of float plane strike.
Launched 9, 6 and 4 number ground strike with 500/600 lb bomb. Number of planes dropping each cycle as they rotated back to the ship with some reported as damage or destroyed. Not sure if the cause of damages was to AA or landing.
Of 19 bombs dropped by the floatplanes only one hit. Quite far from doing enough damage to score a kill on the land bombardment target.
Rest of the battle was conventional with enemy only fielding corvettes, transports and one DD in opposition. CAFP with DD escorts had no issue with these minimal combatants.
Key observations: = Floatplane bombing very inaccurate and with lighter bombs ineffective = Each time sent on ground strike roughly 1/3 of the floatplanes would not be immediately re-useable, reporting as damaged or worse
|
|
|
Post by gorthaff on Jun 11, 2019 13:51:54 GMT -6
RtW2 models the associated tonnage of a plane by it taking up tonnage in excess of 20 tons, and requiring a certain size of hull per unit. The concerns you rased are adressed.
|
|