Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 7:29:55 GMT -6
Thought maybe we'd have some chat while waiting for RTW... What dya think is the definition of a quintessential dreadnought, with the benefit of hindsight? These are obvious: 1. Good torpedo defense is a must. 2. Good armor, preferably with all or nothing design. 3. Large caliber guns. 4. Decent speed for positioning and torpedo avoidance. (5. Would like to stick a radar on it if it's 1920 science fiction.. I digress!) However a few notes from own experience with SAI. Deck and belt armor is obviously important, especially engine room B and D for pens of these leads to paralyzed speed which equals ship out of the fight. But also is Turret and Turrent Top, for turret penetrations often lead to flash fires. In the North Sea, deck seems less important even, due to bad weather - it's Britain, it rains a lot. Guns... this I really dunno within the SAI damage mechanism: Larger caliber guns or more guns with slightly less caliber? i.e. 8x16inch vs 12x14inch etc? But most importantly, the balance of armor vs firepower vs maneuverability: which is the more critical? The Germans and Brits obviously have different perceptions of it. Ofc there're strategical requirements of the 2 nations in play, but there we have the end result. The standard type BBs of the US seems to favor armor to speed, never upping the 21kt limit while the classes advanced except ofc the defunct South Dakota. (also preference of 14in vs 15in main guns, or is it a different philosophy of tripple vs double turret, or is it simply a matter of a lack of research on 15in and higher caliber guns?) Japan OtOH likes speed more?? Thoughts? ..or what would your designs look like within the realms of reason?
|
|
|
Post by gornik on May 12, 2015 17:26:45 GMT -6
In ship design I'm German a bit... My ideal battleship for SAI should have heavier armour at the expense of smaller main calibre (compared to potential enemies). 1-2 knots extra speed will be my secondary goal in designing, mainly to avoid unwanted battles and not allow the enemy to do the same. Belt and deck better be extended, if damage/repair system would be SAI-like: now new shining battleship may go to repair for month after 2-3 6" HE hits from light cruiser-extended belt should reduce possibility of this, I think. As Gangut is my favourite ship from childhood, dreadnought preferably will have triple turrets distributed over her entire length. As bonus, they may be upgraded to more powerful double one's after research. Torpedo defence may be medium - my experience from playing HSF is that ship with advanced bulkheads may get 1-2 torpedoes without sinking, and if she got more (usually while meeting DD flotilla in rainy night-BTW, can this happen in RTW?), ship is doomed regardless of protection as "more" usually means 6-9 hits. Secondary guns (at least 5" calibre) will be placed in casemates or single turrets - Russian pre-dreadnoughts in RJW and Rurik II in Baltic campaign lose their secondaries too fast due to doubling guns. One of the most important system is fire control. Having it better than enemy may be the key to victory. In my opinion, such ships may destroy nearly equal enemy due to rapid and accurate fire, an if they met superior force, they should be "wagenburg" for destroyer flotillas, alowing them to get good attack position before damage become dangerous. At least, these are my theoretical thoughts and paper plans which will be tested first after RTW release
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 19:20:51 GMT -6
Hi gornik, good ideas. I otoh never know whats best... Fast battleships like the QEs look very powerful to me as well as german BCs who can fight as battleships and freely cross the enemy's T. The heavy armor on the german ships are always appreciated who bounce shells repeatedly. And the range bonus of 15/14inch guns on the US/RN ships always is useful. So probably want it all like any other guy and would have to experiment...
And yes I never thought about fire control... If RTW has elements of FC design then it surely is a must, in order to hit first and hit fast.
As for torpedoes, I think they're the bane of the WW1 era battleship's existence :mad: ......
Oldpop: yes ofc money/resources decides everything first eh:rolleyes:... sad at times but true.
|
|
gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on May 13, 2015 4:23:51 GMT -6
The "best" battleship is a result of trade between budget, industrial power of shipbuilding, sleeps, gunnery plants, engines, requirements to operational zones, dimensions&displacement=cost of these ships, political&economical reasons, national engineering experience and naval science levels. All of the variants of models of "best" battleships are demonstrated in real naval history in 1914 - 1945. 1. British R`s and Queen Elisabetn 2. German Bayern 3. Pre- Washington-Treaty Superdreadnoughts (UK, U.S., Japan, Russia, France, German "paper" ships, e.t.c.) 4. Washington-Treaty classic battleships (BB Nelson) 5. Washington-Treaty Fast battleships (King George V, Soutn Dacota, Bismarck) 6. Small fast battleships, e.g. german Scarnhorst, French Dunkerque 7. Non-Washington Treaty big and giant battleships (Yamato, Iowa, Indiana, e.t.c., german and soviet "paper" ships)
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 13, 2015 4:41:47 GMT -6
Its a simple question for me, armor-firepower-speed
A battleship that is unable to survive enemy shells is complete useless and well speed NEVER was protection, is more tactical/operational advantage but not a protection feature. If you design a ship that is a "damage dealer" you need it survive the enemy´s damage.
Firepower... here over calibre i think accurancy is more important + shell quality, smaller calibres means more shells (more chances to hit) with higher ROF and more shell speed, sure every hit count less but you can score more hits and is not like you need a big shell to score a hit over a weak area and exploit a design fail in the target.
Double or Triple turrets... i prefer double turrets but i find triple usefull to complete a design necesity (for example why not BC or CA ala Deutchland with 2 double turrets forward and a single tripe backward to dont need mount 2 turrets and save weight) and as a way to have stronger turrets but for me ideal is double turrets.
Speed... be fast is good in attack and in defense but maybe is the first advantage you lose in combat because armor is allways "active" and you can lose guns or accurancy but if you sacrifice armor and firepower for speed you start all the time with the 2 areas on red numbers (even a paper ship with great firepower very very rare times survive in a true combat enough to lose speed before blow up).
Torpedos... for me they are not the main problem for WWI battleships, think that submarines were to new to be a real danger (their victories over combat ships were rare) and DDs or CLs are easy to counter with "killer ships" (CA) and similar ships can counter them to... more than design BBs to survive torpedos in early years is better design support ships to deal with torpedo ships to prevent them attack BBs... night combat is other history but here is more a training or doctrine question.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 13, 2015 9:55:24 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2015 14:46:22 GMT -6
Torpedos... for me they are not the main problem for WWI battleships, think that submarines were to new to be a real danger (their victories over combat ships were rare) and DDs or CLs are easy to counter with "killer ships" (CA) and similar ships can counter them to... more than design BBs to survive torpedos in early years is better design support ships to deal with torpedo ships to prevent them attack BBs... night combat is other history but here is more a training or doctrine question. Kasuga you raise a good point with the CA. As a fleet designer does one want to build CAs to counter light forces? (From my limited knowledge that is) historically the major WW1 era naval powers didn't focus on the ship type and they only bloomed after washington treaty. Actually how did the British use their numerous old CAs? Ship of the line or as scouts? In game the SAI AI seems to use them exclusively as line ships. I have used them as scouts. They're very effective against CLs and DDs and make me wish for more fast CAs. But they also present a nice target for capital ships in big fleet engagements hmm... As for torpedoes I disagree though, operationally you can counter, but tactically a single torpedo hit is usually catastrophic for a dreadnought whereas it can survive prolonged main gun hits. Torpedo defense design advanced much further post WW1 should evidence that.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on May 13, 2015 17:43:19 GMT -6
Torpedos... for me they are not the main problem for WWI battleships, think that submarines were to new to be a real danger (their victories over combat ships were rare) and DDs or CLs are easy to counter with "killer ships" (CA) and similar ships can counter them to... more than design BBs to survive torpedos in early years is better design support ships to deal with torpedo ships to prevent them attack BBs... night combat is other history but here is more a training or doctrine question. Kasuga you raise a good point with the CA. As a fleet designer does one want to build CAs to counter light forces? (From my limited knowledge that is) historically the major WW1 era naval powers didn't focus on the ship type and they only bloomed after washington treaty. Actually how did the British use their numerous old CAs? Ship of the line or as scouts? In game the SAI AI seems to use them exclusively as line ships. I have used them as scouts. They're very effective against CLs and DDs and make me wish for more fast CAs. But they also present a nice target for capital ships in big fleet engagements hmm... As for torpedoes I disagree though, operationally you can counter, but tactically a single torpedo hit is usually catastrophic for a dreadnought whereas it can survive prolonged main gun hits. Torpedo defense design advanced much further post WW1 should evidence that. DD-killer design for CA is very interesting idea! In SAI RJW campaign Russian Aurora-class cruisers look best suited for fleet protection against destroyers, sinking half a dosen of them in some my battles, and theoretically some ship like "faster Rossiya-class" may be the same "fleet protector" for WWI period. In my opinion good anti-DD ship should have largest possible battery, armed with 5" or 6" guns, looking more like frigate from Nelson's era:) as smaller amount of heavier guns have much less chance to damage enemies seriously enough from safe distance with first broadsides. But in practice their use will be very limited. Such ship will cost too much and will be too weak for another usages, except raiding and minelaying. Even hunting enemy raiders won't be safe for her if they would be normal CA's. But if she will be also armed with significant number of torpedo mounts (12 or more), then she may be the best flotilla leader-too big to ignore, too protected to sink fast, too armed to counter with light forces...and very dangerous! Hmm, protected counter-DD torpedo ram... I should think about it To oldpop2000: Thank you for link! That's clear mathematical explanation of things I can only suspect before. And the whole site looks interesting!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 13, 2015 20:20:04 GMT -6
You are most welcome. BTW, the book he references by Captain Wayne Hughes is excellent, strongly urge you to read it. If you are really interested in designing your own ship, use SpringSharp - www.springsharp.com/Good Luck.... and good shooting.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on May 13, 2015 23:51:10 GMT -6
To oldpop2000: Thank you for link! That's clear mathematical explanation of things I can only suspect before. And the whole site looks interesting! Navweaps has interesting forums as well. The Battleship vs Battleships and the Design a Navy / Ship forum has a lot of discussions on ship construction and alternate ship designs that should be of interest to anyone contemplating RTW. Though as on all forums there are sometimes people getting very agitated and even rude in discussions like about the armor thickness of ships that weren't even built!
warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/directory#.VVQ3M00w-Cg
|
|
gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on May 14, 2015 2:50:18 GMT -6
This is a Russian professional fleet forum. Many of her users are fleet officers, engineers and researchers. tsushima.su/forums/index.php
SpringSharp is a very interesting device, but NO accurate. It is impossible to create a very realistic project with SpringSharp. It is necessary to make all of calculations manually!
About Lanchester equations. Both Lanchester equations are creating for modelling a infantry battles, first equation for ancient armies (e.g. Roma Legions), the second - for modern armies with guns. Lanchester equations is no corrects for naval battle calculation. For example, in 1904-1918 has no any naval battle with many sinked ships, with time 1-2, 2,5 hours. The battleships of this period had a very enormous survivability.
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 14, 2015 3:57:23 GMT -6
Well, my idea is have 2 CAs classes if i have money for them... i want avoid old Battleships and center in have good polivalent CA ships.
Class one is going to be like the WWII CAs with 8 guns as main armament and a good secondary battery of 5 guns (made them cheaper maybe means a pair of double turrets to the front and a single triple turret in rear and at least 5 secondary guns per side) with a good speed to deal with DDs and CLs, main role is going to be "long range scort" this means that is going to be between main body and the external CLs line, a good ship to have advantage over enemy scouts, they operate as "lone warriors" with no limitations, they move where they are needed.
Class two... i want here a semi BC, a ship with heavy firepower for his size and that can work as raider and "hit and run" ship (many times old Battleships do the job of bombardement ships but this is only usefull when enemy doesnt have ships to ruin your day and use valuable BCs on this role is charge them with excesive work), i see here CAs armed with 11 guns, maybe 3 double turrets and again a good secondary battery but using 6 guns with 6 per side or similar and a more powerfull terciary battery. Is going to be a raider, a bombardement ship and when they are not doing this add an extra punch to the first class of CAs or even as a "support division" for true BCs, ready to add their fire power to increade presure over enemy in attack or breaking contact.
On this CAs armor is not going to be a must have, at least in class 1 (they are going to meet 4-5-6-8-10 guns but in old designs and as cover/support they can break contact and search bigger boys support) because they are going to be more "space winners" for main body, class 2 is other history... but the point is use them as bullies, fight small ships and avoid big ones but ready for emergencies.
The problem with BBs is how they need increase their weight to add torpedo protection after WWI... the problem never was the torpedo itself, the problem was when use torpedos over ships move from ships to airplanes, you simple cant protect a BB to survive a lot of torpedo hits and with airplanes this cracks the BB role as main ship on fleets, yea, they are a good anti-ship and bombardement ship but airplanes can do both jobs and the anti ship role a lot better because have more range of attack and more precision on attacks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2015 5:23:20 GMT -6
Class one is just what I need! A fast scout and scout bully. To be tested is their evasiveness against big guns... For class 2 do you think they're cost effective vs BCs? (money money must be funny:)) Fredrik W?
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 14, 2015 5:40:58 GMT -6
Well, class 2 for me depends of cost, as you say money money money BUT in the end a true BC (closer to the german concept not UK concept) is allways more expensive and has more value to use it in the CA class 1 or 2 role... with CAs i want liberate BCs to play the "fleet heavy scouts" role and avoid use them in bombardement missions all the time to have them doing something... i prefer dont be forced to move BCs near to enemy coast specially when the distance is high and is easy cut their retreat... here a cheaper ship faster is more usable AND you allways can find missions for them.
For me is better use CAs over old Battleships because are more usable and maybe costs are not very far... even more, bigger navies can have less ships with a similar or lower cost but capable of do more jobs and missions compared with old battleships.
|
|
gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on May 14, 2015 6:17:23 GMT -6
Is a historical conception of "supercruiser", like American Alyaska class CB (big cruiser)or Japan B-65 class battlecruiser, or German "paper" O-class battlecruiser...
|
|