|
Post by brucesim2003 on May 15, 2015 6:37:52 GMT -6
The ship with all turrets aft is only made for 1 thing....running away. How are you going to dictate the range when you can't close and fire at the same time? And as for the speed is life theory, in the age of the dreadnought it was proven time and again that the idea was fallacious. One good hit in the right place and you lose the speed advantage. What do you have then? A soggy paper bag that falls apart as soon as someone sneezes at it. Also, in murky weather, a Monmouth class CA is gonna do some real nice things to that ship.
The problem with the British style battlecruiser is that it was designed to do one thing and only one thing....kill cruisers. As was proven, it could do that very well, but unlike the German equivalent, that was all it could do. There is a reason Jellico sent HMS's Refit and Repair back to the dockyard as soon as they joined the fleet. The later versions on Alex' ship is basically the same as the Courageous and Glorious. Look how long they were kept in their original role.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 7:58:15 GMT -6
In talking to some survivors of PH, the Arizona had a small black powder magazine between #1 and #2 turret. The bomb struck some oil stored between those turrets, ignited it, this touched off the black powder which ignited the forward 14" magazine. This information was gathered from photographic evidence and diver information. There was no procedural problems, just peacetime operations. When the war started, all flammable material was removed, like wooden furniture.
This is off topic but interesting.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 8:04:33 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_ironcladI agree that Tiger might have been the ideal BC, she was the only ship that besides the super dreadnoughts of Battle Squadron 5 that outrun the German battlecruisers as doctrine specified. She was a good balance of all necessary factors.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 10:13:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 15, 2015 10:30:25 GMT -6
I prefer german aproximation... maybe early BCs with a better position for turrets could help them and the use of 4x2 turrets using 305mm as the smaller caliber.
The UK BCs outrun german battlecluisers by number and the support of BBs ... and luck plays a good role here to.
For me a ship that has over 25.000 displacement needs armor/protection, play with big ships that offer a big target for big guns needs protection even if you need sacrifice 1 or 2 knots.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 10:47:01 GMT -6
I prefer german aproximation... maybe early BCs with a better position for turrets could help them and the use of 4x2 turrets using 305mm as the smaller caliber. The UK BCs outrun german battlecluisers by number and the support of BBs ... and luck plays a good role here to. For me a ship that has over 25.000 displacement needs armor/protection, play with big ships that offer a big target for big guns needs protection even if you need sacrifice 1 or 2 knots. I believe that the German designs were a result of their geographic location in the center of Europe and that meant that they were not a traditional naval power. However, that being said, I like their basic ship designs for the location in the Baltic and North Sea that these ships would have to serve. Their tactics left something to be desired but that discussion is for another time and place.
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 15, 2015 11:24:43 GMT -6
Well, the tactical question is if when you start the battle your BCs can deal with enemy shells or not, if cant do it well, you need enemy fight as you want/need because if he uses the armor advantage...
For me the german concept was OK, a true all terrain BC the problem was more in the armament they mount and how but last models solve this and in the end were more fast BBs than early war BCs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 11:33:37 GMT -6
Well, the tactical question is if when you start the battle your BCs can deal with enemy shells or not, if cant do it well, you need enemy fight as you want/need because if he uses the armor advantage... For me the german concept was OK, a true all terrain BC the problem was more in the armament they mount and how but last models solve this and in the end were more fast BBs than early war BCs. In regards to the tactical doctrine used by the Germans, here is link to their Tactical Orders
www.gwpda.org/naval/gnto0000.htm
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 15, 2015 12:02:08 GMT -6
One good hit in the right place and you lose the speed advantage one good hit in the right place at any ship and you have the same situation the war shows that German BC could not do anything. They lost in all actions
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 15, 2015 12:04:55 GMT -6
Here is the final version of my 20,000t battlecruiser. I have return to first version with new guns position and normal deck armor
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 15, 2015 12:11:31 GMT -6
And here is the result of quick test battle versus German BC including combat at medium distance
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 15, 2015 12:13:44 GMT -6
The British ships damages during test battle:
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 15, 2015 12:14:39 GMT -6
The German ships damages during test battle
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on May 15, 2015 12:30:40 GMT -6
Interesting idea, single turrets with big gun... maybe the test is a little strange because germans score very few heavy hits and doesnt look very destructive.
Any way is an interesting design.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 12:51:41 GMT -6
Hmm while I'm not so sure for real life I think Alex's design has a point in SaI at least. In game damage mechanism seems to dictate that no matter how well protected, the ship will sink after certain number of hits, likely because some hits are on unarmored areas. I.e. Hull/superstructure passthrough hits, fore/aft hull hits, superstructure hits*, critical hits etc. and when was the last time BE armor stopped anything big... (I've had Lutzow hit by a 4in shell on fore/aft hull causing 1000+ flooding and nearly repeated history lol). These seem to occur by a good percentage and push increase in armor protection into marginal returns. Meanwhile the similar thinly armed ship HMS glorious did take some 20 hits to sink, it's as if all ships has health points proportionate to tonnage, or look at it another way, all the armor the BBs have just increases their toughness by mere 50% (30 hits)... So while say engine room B hits will be problematic in tactical situations the seemingly low cost of the design might just make it up in numbers, and who's to say the player can't outwit AI in cunning strategy and tactics with its speed and firepower... Battles at night and in rain is to be avoided I guess as said against better armed foes. But then again the design is low cost and the 15in gun might just take someone down with him!...
edit: perhaps it is not a problem with game damage mechanism at all but underlying fault with battleship armor scheme to begin with. It seems all that really matters is B, D, T and TT armor. It's feasible these just might count for stopping about 1/3 of heavy hits... And so before All or nothing armor came along why bother with much armor at all?! Bit of an alternate history........
|
|