|
Post by alex on May 14, 2015 12:44:10 GMT -6
it is battlecruiser, not the battleship and this ship is not for classical linear combat. How many battles fleet by fleet happens during all WW1? Only one! So why we need design BC for battle which may never happens. There are a lot fleet operations where we need fast and well armed cruisers
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2015 12:53:54 GMT -6
it is battlecruiser, not the battleship and this ship is not for classical linear combat. How many battles fleet by fleet happens during all WW1? Only one! So why we need design BC for battle which may never happens. There are a lot fleet operations where we need fast and well armed cruisers The battlecruiser was produced to search and destroy enemy cruisers in guerre de course, however, if you spend that much money on a well armed and fast ship, you are not going to waste it on trade warfare. You will use it in a scouting role as both sides did in WWI. Hence, the battlecruiser did serve in a classical linear combat. I say again that you cannot predict who and when you will meet the enemy and your ship had better be a balanced design for survivability. For the other roles, just use regular armored cruisers and light cruisers, they are cheaper and faster.
BTW, my design in designship had one turret forward and two aft, a standard design.
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 14, 2015 12:53:57 GMT -6
Sorry, i think that guns were mounted forward... but in the end is the same problem but now you cant hunt enemy, for me ships with all main guns forward of in rear are very very specific designs, for example Dunkerque class, french design them as Deuchtland hunters this made them capable as hunters BUT if they find a diferent prey... or DDs use smoke to save them or bye bye.
The problem with very specific designs for a situation is that usually rare times they are in the situation that made them appear.
EDIT: oldpop2000, thats the point why i want a CA with 3x2x11 guns a design for raider missions and to send far stations where only a true BC can hunt them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2015 12:57:39 GMT -6
Sorry, i think that guns were mounted forward... but in the end is the same problem but now you cant hunt enemy, for me ships with all main guns forward of in rear are very very specific designs, for example Dunkerque class, french design them as Deuchtland hunters this made them capable as hunters BUT if they find a diferent prey... or DDs use smoke to save them or bye bye. The problem with very specific designs for a situation is that usually rare times they are in the situation that made them appear. EDIT: oldpop2000, thats the point why i want a CA with 3x2x11 guns a design for raider missions and to send far stations where only a true BC can hunt them. I understand, my design had one dual gun turret forward and two dual gun turrets aft. Guerre de Course or trade warfare was popular during the age of sail but with coal and oil fired engines it rapidly lost its advantage unless you are the British. You can't really design a ship just for trade warfare, even Jackie Fisher probably realized that since the follow-on battlecruisers were getting bigger, had bigger guns and now looked like fast battleships of the late 1930's. Originally those BC's were titled dreadnought armored cruisers, their main purpose was to occupy the scouting force and as such would encounter the enemy battlefleet. The idea was that their higher speed would allow them to get away after discovering the opponents position. As we know, that did not happen, they were used to engage the enemy battlefleet and hopefully with their better speed, avoid destruction. Hence the name was changed to battlecruiser.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2015 16:29:32 GMT -6
Can't help but wonder what exactly is the benefit of using BCs as scouts... In SAI battles my BC fleet is just like Jutland, they cover more range, deals out more hits per ship and receive more damage. I have counted them... So I now keep the BC fleet in the back and use it as mobile reserve. Let the battle fleet take the initial blow which is as it should be. There is no need for 20+ knots while scouting anyway. As for armor vs speed, they need imo to be balanced. Too much speed you get a paper ship and too much armor the ship then can't maneuver. Tis why I really like the German BCs as they seem like a balanced design. Otoh the battleships' 21kts are I reckon universally too slow, fast BBs/super BCs post-ww1 to ww2 is a huge improvement. Come to think of it... Prolly ain't a bad idea to discard the battleships entirely and build a fleet of well armored BCs!
|
|
|
Post by gornik on May 14, 2015 17:02:55 GMT -6
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. You are right, but Lanchester didn't try to model real combat. In his abstract cases "spherical battleships shoot ideal shells in the middle of infinite sea", but this equations show, which features may enhance the power of fleet and which are useless. So we can decide either take them in mind designing fleet or try to counter them with not-so-exponential things like choosing right weather, proper tactics, better shells etc.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on May 14, 2015 17:51:14 GMT -6
The speed is the best protection for me. So I prefer well-armed ship with high speed and without armor like Courageous. Here is my battle cruiser with extreme values Courageous-style design is attractive for me too, but your extra-ship seem suffer some problems. First, at full speed smoke will cover the horizon astern, making fire control much harder in SAI (maybe even impossible IRL); and fast changes of distance made fire even more inaccurate. Second, any mechanical problem will cut half of artillery power (and I sometimes saw B's and CA's with both turret jammed). Also, as Kasuga mentioned, she is fox, not hound, and chasing fast enough prey (C-class CL for example) is complex problem for her. And last but not least: before radar will be invented, her advantages may be used only during day in good weather. Battle at night/rain/fog/storm even with heavy-armed CL may become nightmare for both sides. (there may be also problem of identification-in RJW campaign I once nearly lost Askold as unidentified ship in Tsushima straight suddenly appeared to be Izumo ) Sorry for criticism, I've just read alternative history site, where such super-raiders were mentioned as the only worthy ships, so now I really criticise them more than you
|
|
|
Post by jdkbph on May 14, 2015 19:06:06 GMT -6
Speed advantage in naval warfare is ephemeral. The rate of movement of your fleet moves at the speed of the slowest ship and sea conditions which should affect all combatants. Speed advantage for Beatty did not help him much, nor did it help Battleship Squadron 5 however the armor did. Many would disagree but Beatty's speed advantage wasn't much, I wouldn't rely on the mathematically derived immune zone. Here is a quote about immune zone by William Jurens in his article on the NavWeaps website. It is contained in the "loss of HMS Hood" article: First, I'm not saying speed is the be all, end all. But it was a major consideration in period warship design and tactics... far from ephemeral (which I take to mean irrelevant). I'll just say that the idea that speed, be it a single ship or a formation of ships, allowing one to dictate the range of engagement - and all the benefits derived therefrom - has been a maxim of naval tactics for centuries, and it is still valid today... and leave it at that. Second, Beatty is a bad example. The issues there were C3I related, compounded by serious technical and procedural flaws relating to ammunition handling and flash prevention, along with a certain amount of arrogance. And finally, as to the Hood.... I'm somewhat familiar with the subject, having studied the ship and it's fate for over 30 years. The article you quoted, thorough and detailed, seems to suggest that the fatal hit most likely penetrated below the belt. This I assume is the basis of your contention that the "immune zone" is a fallacy. However, in dismissing other theories, such as deck penetration - the theory I espouse - it seems to overlook one significant detail. Having closed the range to place her within the calculated immune zone, in order to parallel Bismarck's course and open her X and Y turret arcs, Hood was in the midst of a high speed turn to port. It as at this precise moment that she was hit by Bismarck. Given Hood's speed and rudder angle (which was recorded in 2001), her unusually low metacentric height and her extreme fineness ratio, the fall angle of the Bismarck's shell, coupled with the the ship's heel at the moment of impact, would have been sufficient to allow for penetration of both the upper and main armored deck, inboard of the glacis and main deck extension near frame 280, as well as the armored cap over the after main magazine. In other words, her original requirements and design choices, exacerbated by modifications applied during subsequent refits, created the conditions which allowed for a one in a million tragedy. The tactics and employment were sound. That, in my mind, does not render moot the immune zone concept. JD
|
|
|
Post by jdkbph on May 14, 2015 19:14:29 GMT -6
Come to think of it... Prolly ain't a bad idea to discard the battleships entirely and build a fleet of well armored BCs! That's exactly what happened! The progenitor of the successful post treaty BBs (NCs, SoDaks, Iowas, Vanguard, Bismarck, etc) was Derfflinger/Mackensen/Ersatz Yorck... not QE or Arizona. JD
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2015 19:25:02 GMT -6
Speed advantage in naval warfare is ephemeral. The rate of movement of your fleet moves at the speed of the slowest ship and sea conditions which should affect all combatants. Speed advantage for Beatty did not help him much, nor did it help Battleship Squadron 5 however the armor did. Many would disagree but Beatty's speed advantage wasn't much, I wouldn't rely on the mathematically derived immune zone. Here is a quote about immune zone by William Jurens in his article on the NavWeaps website. It is contained in the "loss of HMS Hood" article: First, I'm not saying speed is the be all, end all. But it was a major consideration in period warship design and tactics... far from ephemeral (which I take to mean irrelevant). I'll just say that the idea that speed, be it a single ship or a formation of ships, allowing one to dictate the range of engagement - and all the benefits derived therefrom - has been a maxim of naval tactics for centuries, and it is still valid today... and leave it at that. Second, Beatty is a bad example. The issues there were C3I related, compounded by serious technical and procedural flaws relating to ammunition handling and flash prevention, along with a certain amount of arrogance. And finally, as to the Hood.... I'm somewhat familiar with the subject, having studied the ship and it's fate for over 30 years. The article you quoted, thorough and detailed, seems to suggest that the fatal hit most likely penetrated below the belt. This I assume is the basis of your contention that the "immune zone" is a fallacy. However, in dismissing other theories, such as deck penetration - the theory I espouse - it seems to overlook one significant detail. Having closed the range to place her within the calculated immune zone, in order to parallel Bismarck's course and open her X and Y turret arcs, Hood was in the midst of a high speed turn to port. It as at this precise moment that she was hit by Bismarck. Given Hood's speed and rudder angle (which was recorded in 2001), her unusually low metacentric height and her extreme fineness ratio, the fall angle of the Bismarck's shell, coupled with the the ship's heel at the moment of impact, would have been sufficient to allow for penetration of both the upper and main armored deck, inboard of the glacis and main deck extension near frame 280, as well as the armored cap over the after main magazine. In other words, her original requirements and design choices, exacerbated by modifications applied during subsequent refits, created the conditions which allowed for a one in a million tragedy. The tactics and employment were sound. That, in my mind, does not render moot the immune zone concept. JD Speed was a major consideration, and always has been but it does not always dictate the range of the engagement. There are far too many factors including weather, sea state that can affect the range.
Beatty is not a bad example, he was aggressive and that is the British Royal Navy Nelsonian mode in the 100 years since Trafalgar. Jellicoe was probably an anomaly to that training.
The immune zone is a calculated theoretical zone that may or may not be valid under combat conditions and that is exactly what happened to Hood. All that you have said; high speed turn to port; low metacentric height and her fineness ratio all speak to a situation that could not be calculated in that era. With high speed computers now, possibly we could have predicted such an occurrence but they could not do that then. Refits, etc. allowed for the golden BB, and that renders the immune zone not necessarily moot, but it has to be carefully applied and under combat conditions is not necessarily valid. As the author stated, under the conditions that Hood was in, immune zone calculation was not determinable. It is a mathematical calculation to help in the design of the ship, but cannot be a hard and fast rule during combat.
Here is a short article by a contributor on NavWeaps about the Immmune Zone. He says it far better than my terrible attempt to explain it. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-069.htm
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 15, 2015 1:19:57 GMT -6
The next iteration of my battlecruiser project with displacement less than 20,000 tons. Less speed, less firepower but more useful for different type of operations
|
|
gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on May 15, 2015 1:34:08 GMT -6
For my opinion, in period 1914-1918, the "ideal" battlecruiser was HMS Tiger (a moderate displacement, good speed, enough protection, good gunfire power), and the "ideal" battleship was HMS Queen Elizabeth (a moderate displacement, enough speed, good protection, good gunfire power). alex, your ship is a very liked to Italian cruiser-battleship Italia class (1885), see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia-class_ironclad
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 2:35:27 GMT -6
Come to think of it... Prolly ain't a bad idea to discard the battleships entirely and build a fleet of well armored BCs! That's exactly what happened! The progenitor of the successful post treaty BBs (NCs, SoDaks, Iowas, Vanguard, Bismarck, etc) was Derfflinger/Mackensen/Ersatz Yorck... not QE or Arizona. JD heeh... reminds me of medium tank/heavy tank --> main battle tank, and fighter/bomber --> multi-role fighter. Must be a pattern there! HMS Queen Elizabeth (a moderate displacement, enough speed, good protection, good gunfire power). I really liked QEs, but back when reading on USN standard BBs on navweaps, my impression was tainted. What did the Brits do or didn't do to make them so prone to damage? www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.htm
|
|
gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on May 15, 2015 3:06:31 GMT -6
Undoubtedly, the U.S. Standard Battleships has a excellent survivability, but in this time, no enough speed for classic clash in battle lines. But, at the time, Colorado vs QE is a very concurrent conception.
A few about battleships duels. This elementary calculation shows a limitations of strike power of battleship formations.
Assuming to opposing battleships with side salvo with 8 big shells, for each is enough 30 hits of big shells for sinking/out of action. Probability of hit for each - 5%. For achieving 30 hits each ship need to make 75 salvos, for example, each salvo in 1,5 minute = 112,5 minutes for sinking/out of action. In naval standards, each gun have a approximately 100 shells in magazine.
112,5 minutes is e very long time for making a different tactical reactions for any battleship. Also, after to sinking a opponent, the winning side will have no more of 25 shells.
According to experiments in Russian Fleet before WW1, the optimal quantity of ships for fire concentration, 2 or 3 ships (experiments in Baltic and Black Sea fleets).
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 15, 2015 4:07:21 GMT -6
A little of topic, Alex, to draw the ships you do it one by one or you have modules and join them to have the design??? i think that something like your draws to the game could be great, not only see the ship in a top view... lateral view to notice other design details, for example your design has one turret at same level that command area... this is a problem because reduce to only 1 position the control area for the ship in combat for exaple.
|
|