Quintessential fleet

[gornik]

We have great thread about ship construction, but "thousand of ships are not yet fleet". So I decided to start separate thread about how many and what ships should have your early game fleet.

Here is my theoretical fleet for typical colonial Great  Power (neither Great Britain nor Austria-Hungary)

Battleships:
As many as economically possible... after fulfilling other requirements. They would be classical design (which seem to be the only possible before 1904 according to manual): 4x12", perfect protection, 16-18 knots. All other will depend of national possibilities. Should form the line in decisive battle.

Armoured cruisers:
A)at least 4-5 "pre-BCs": displacement and endurance of 1-st class battleship with protection of 2-nd class; 8" main guns or maybe all-6" design like my Trummel, 22-23 knots.  Should be forward squadron of battleline before battle, cross the T during it and finish damaged enemies after it.
B) if possible, 2-3 CA raiders (not more even if money allow): "white elephants", more like Russian Peresvets but with faster speed (21 knots at least) and long range, may be built at foreign shipyard to get decent quality. Should clear high seas from enemy trade protectors allowing lighter ships to perform Guerre de Course or diverting new ships from the main front. Should base at colonies.

Protected cruisers:
A)near 10 big long range ships with many 6" guns, suitable for all. 23-24 knots required. Should perform Guerre de Course, guard convoys and take main part in light forces clashes.
B)8-10 lightest and cheapest possible cruisers, 22-knot fleet scouts with lot of 3"-4" guns. Should form forward search line before battle and then (if survived) support flagship and beat off enemy DDs. Their motto: "First to fight, first to die", loses are intentional, as from my battle generator experience, scout is kamikaze regardless of size and armaments. At least they save A type for more profitable duties.

Destroyers:
Don't think they are reliable in time before RJW, but plan to build some overgunned ones (torpedo gunboat-style) for light forces clashes. Also at least 1 DD per ship of the line should be built to check luck in serious battles (and for future ASW). Design will be typical for that time: "Steam fast, die young"

Colonial gunboats:
A type light cruisers should serve this duty before war, survived B-type ones after.

Subs:
According to campaign experience, they wouldn't be my priority to invent and build, at least during first years - their influence at enemy's economy and navy should be checked, and their influence at neutral politicians is well known...

Hope after release some of my theories would be crushed by game experience-the thing I love most in such games, it makes them very realistic

[oldpop2000]

Representative costs of warships in the period:

Warship construction costs from "Jane's Fighting Ships," 1914 edition

Queen Elizabeth [then uncompleted] estimated at £2.5m but see below for a detailed breakdown
King George V - £1,965,000 or about £85 per ton
Colossus - £1,730,000 or £87 per ton
Neptune - cost to build £86.8 per ton, machinery only £258,000
Dreadnought - £1,797,497
Lion Class - average per ship £2m
Indefatigable - £1,547,426 or about £82.53 per ton
Invincible - £1,752,000 or about £101.6 per ton
Lord Nelson [est] - £1.5m
King Edward Class - £1.5m

Swiftsure and Triumph purchased from Chile for £949,900 but this price could be distorted due to the circumstances of the sale.

Queen and Prince of Wales - 'just over £1m' [see Swiftsure!]

Armoured cruisers:
Warrior - £1,180,000
Duke of Edinburgh - £1,150,000
Hampshire - £850,000
Kent - £775,000
Good Hope - 'just over £1million'
note: the Kent class was intended to be an 'economy' cruiser for service on distant stations and this is reflected in the price here.

Light cruisers - very few costings in Jane's.

Boadicea - £330,000
Adventure - £275,000
Forward - £289,000
Pathfinder - £273,000
Topaze - £240,000

German: [source Jane's 1914 - presumably calculated in sterling at the prevailing exchange rate]
Kaiser - £2.4m
Westfalen - £1,838,000
Moltke and Goeben - £2.2m
Von Der Tann - £1,833,000
Deutschland - £1.2m
Braunschweig - £1,160,000
Blucher - £1,349,000
Kolberg - £381,480
Stuttgart + Konigsberg - £319,000

Beagle - £110,000
Acorn - £94,000
Acheron - £88,000
Acasta - £100,000
Laforey - £98,000
M class - £100,000

Source: WW1: The War At Sea site.

[oldpop2000]

If I were building a fleet, I would first decide what my strategic requirements were; lines of communications, colony protection or coastal defense or all of the above. From that decision and requirements, I would choose my fleet composition. The composition would depend on my geographic position. Do I border an enclosed sea? How many exits, how wide are they, how deep and who borders those exits. How deep is the sea that I border and what is the bottom like. If I border an ocean, does a possible opponent in the future sit astride my lines of communications and can he interdict my coastal traffic. These are just some of geostrategic considerations for my fleet composition.

Who are my possible opponents and what is their geostrategy? What is the fleet composition for them and what is their economic condition? What is their natural resources and what is their industrial capacity in peace and in war?

My fleet composition really depends on my economic conditions and industrial power? Do I have the necessary steel mills, foundries and shipbuilding facilities along with the expertise to build heavy guns, gun platforms, turrets, armor plate and machinery including hydraulic and steam to power a large battleship. Can I build cranes large enough to install gun turrets, machinery and perform fitting out which takes almost a year in some cases. Are my ship building facilities on rivers and inlets capable of housing these facilities and is there enough land bordering the inlets to put shipbuilding facilities on.

I am not fascinated by battleships but like battle cruisers or fast battleships. I like light cruisers, destroyers and most of all submarines as rudimentary as they might be at this period in naval history. I would like some elementary air support, seaplanes and airships. Torpedo boats and riverboats are good to have and some merchant cruisers and mine ships. Actual composition is dependent on naval budgets and strategic requirements. Difficult to make concrete decisions without analyzing those requirements. One thing to remember: you won with what you brung. Your prewar navy is the navy you will go to war with and it had better be correct because you can't change it later.

[dickturpin]

Oldpop covers the majority of key areas in the above two posts.

If considering a significant force for commerce warfare, you also need to make allowance for the logistics to support such an enterprise. For example, France has a network of overseas bases and coaling stations whilst Germany does not.

Commerce warfare is essentially a matter of mathematics; low unit cost = more units per amount spent = more merchants sunk. Large guns are superfluous for the task of sinking merchants and a heavily armed and armored raider may be tempted to fight its pursuers rather than evade them. Speed to evade pursuers is the key attribute. Range is useful but a small craft with lower coaling requirements can better replenish its bunkers from the prizes it captures.

Not to over spec commerce protection ships; adequate firepower, protection and speed to defeat the actual raiders you face but sufficiently low unit cost to have sufficient "eyes" to find your prey. The British were notoriously prone to get obsessed with "paper" performance data for enemy ships and counter them with expensive alternatives; Rurik (1892) being a case in point.

In game terms, it will be interesting to see the performance of 1900 era Battleships and large Fleet Cruisers as gunnery may be expected to be sufficiently inaccurate to enforce close range combat in which fast firing medium guns become significant. In RJW/WW1, I find that an advantageous position downwind largely neutralizes minor differences between battleships.  

[gornik]

Jul 6, 2015 14:24:23 GMT -6 dickturpin said:

If considering a significant force for commerce warfare, you also need to make allowance for the logistics to support such an enterprise. For example, France has a network of overseas bases and coaling stations whilst Germany does not.

Commerce warfare is essentially a matter of mathematics; low unit cost = more units per amount spent = more merchants sunk. Large guns are superfluous for the task of sinking merchants and a heavily armed and armored raider may be tempted to fight its pursuers rather than evade them. Speed to evade pursuers is the key attribute. Range is useful but a small craft with lower coaling requirements can better replenish its bunkers from the prizes it captures.

That's right, and that is the key point in my raider theory. After small long ranged ships become fast enough to compare with regular cruisers (I think, near 1910 or so), they should become the main body of foreign stations force and act in key regions for 2-3 month and then retreat to closest base to rest and repair (as I understood from manual, bases may change owner only after peace treaty, so they are safe during war). This armada would have 1-2 leaders: large "all-medium guns" CAs. If contacts with enemy trade protectors become too often and annoying, this horde runs to another regions, and CA comes to clear the sea from enemies.

Not to over spec commerce protection ships; adequate firepower,
protection and speed to defeat the actual raiders you face but
sufficiently low unit cost to have sufficient "eyes" to find your prey.
The British were notoriously prone to get obsessed with "paper"
performance data for enemy ships and counter them with expensive
alternatives; Rurik (1892) being a case in point.

In my plans, this should be the duty for outdated heavy ships, as AI will hardly ever risks his ship to get close battle in decisive range. And from large distance heavy guns (probably partially modernised) have all advantages to damage enemy enough to run in closest neutral port and be interned there. However, this may work to the other side too, as I've just understood: what if raider prefer to damage escorts from safe distance rather than sink them, risking damage? 2-3 successful raids - and most of protectors go to repair, so enemy lose both cargo and prestige with lost tramps, and should spend money to repair escorts too! This should be tested...

In game terms, it will be interesting to see the performance of 1900 era Battleships and large Fleet Cruisers as gunnery may be expected to be sufficiently inaccurate to enforce close range combat in which fast firing medium guns become significant. In RJW/WW1, I find that an advantageous position downwind largely neutralizes minor differences between battleships.

During my last tests for all-QF ships from "Definition of the quintessential dreadnought" theme I recognised, that ships with lots of 6" guns are nearly equal to standard battleships like Mikasa, at least in small-sise battles. That's problem of present game mechanic, I think, as more guns+rapid fire=more hits->more opportunity for critical hit and fire starting->effectiveness of enemy fire reducing/cycle repeated until opponent sink. And enemy has only 10-15 minutes to prevent this by damaging "QF hedgehog". However, even early torpedoes and DDs may even the odds - risk of torpedo hit is too large to ignore, and at medium distances both sides have nearly equal chances.

[oldpop2000]

Jul 6, 2015 14:24:23 GMT -6 @turpin said:

Oldpop covers the majority of key areas in the above two posts.

If considering a significant force for commerce warfare, you also need to make allowance for the logistics to support such an enterprise. For example, France has a network of overseas bases and coaling stations whilst Germany does not.

Commerce warfare is essentially a matter of mathematics; low unit cost = more units per amount spent = more merchants sunk. Large guns are superfluous for the task of sinking merchants and a heavily armed and armored raider may be tempted to fight its pursuers rather than evade them. Speed to evade pursuers is the key attribute. Range is useful but a small craft with lower coaling requirements can better replenish its bunkers from the prizes it captures.

Not to over spec commerce protection ships; adequate firepower, protection and speed to defeat the actual raiders you face but sufficiently low unit cost to have sufficient "eyes" to find your prey. The British were notoriously prone to get obsessed with "paper" performance data for enemy ships and counter them with expensive alternatives; Rurik (1892) being a case in point.

In game terms, it will be interesting to see the performance of 1900 era Battleships and large Fleet Cruisers as gunnery may be expected to be sufficiently inaccurate to enforce close range combat in which fast firing medium guns become significant. In RJW/WW1, I find that an advantageous position downwind largely neutralizes minor differences between battleships.  

I agree about the math for guerre de course but I believe that the submarine is the best technological weapon to implement such a strategy. It has all the good characteristics like range, stealth and weapons effectiveness even in WW1. By implementing such a strategy I can force my opponent to reallocate destroyer and cruiser assets to convoy duty and ASW, taking them away from battle fleet operations. It will also force my opponent to reallocate more shipbuilding capacity to for those types of weapons. The opponent will have limited resources in the area of shipbuilding and I might be able to stretch those resources. He can't build battleships and battle cruisers plus repair the battle damaged ships also. He will have to either move financial resources to new shipyards and that might take away from any land war that he is currently engaged in. Resources are limited and I can push those resources to the limits with the submarine. In the Age of Steam, surface raiders are not effective especially if I don't have the overseas bases to provide refuge, coal and damage repair. This is why economic geography and the study of my possible opponents in regards to industrial capacity, shipbuilding, machinery etc. and social structure and population diversity is so vital.

My fleet will build submarines of different classes to meet different requirements and not focus on surface raiders.

[brucesim2003]

I think battlecruisers should be avoided by the admiralty at all costs. Make the heavy cruisers MUCH faster (28+ knots, more if possible) but keep the main battery at about 8". Their role is information, not slugging it out with main line units. Keep the 12" guns off them and the local commander wont be so inclined to try something they are not designed to do.

If you really want to take it to extremes, abolish the sizes between CL and BB. Go for extremely fast CL's that can outrun most anything. They get the info, and bug out. You would essentially have 2 types of CL...patrol/colonial (can walk and chew gum) and scout (can run but leaves the gum at home). Of course that may not be possible in the early years, and also there is the issue of opposing cruisers, but no doctrine is perfect.

Cheers


Bruce

[jma286]

Jul 7, 2015 9:36:21 GMT -6 brucesim2003 said:

I think battlecruisers should be avoided by the admiralty at all costs. Make the heavy cruisers MUCH faster (28+ knots, more if possible) but keep the main battery at about 8". Their role is information, not slugging it out with main line units. Keep the 12" guns off them and the local commander wont be so inclined to try something they are not designed to do.

If you really want to take it to extremes, abolish the sizes between CL and BB. Go for extremely fast CL's that can outrun most anything. They get the info, and bug out. You would essentially have 2 types of CL...patrol/colonial (can walk and chew gum) and scout (can run but leaves the gum at home). Of course that may not be possible in the early years, and also there is the issue of opposing cruisers, but no doctrine is perfect.

Cheers


Bruce

Personally, armored cruisers are going to be the ships that I'll have no use for. Too weak to hold up in the line of battle, too slow to scout and perform effectively in colonial service, while still being large and expensive to maintain. I doubt I'll build any unless there's a few that can be completed for the big discount as part of the legacy fleet. 

As for BCs, I'm going to build two different kinds. The first are my fleet BCs, which will serve as scouts for my battle fleet, rough up enemy scouts, and then fall into the line of battle. I'm going to model these after the German BC designs, which are tough enough to hold up against BBs at least for a while. To fit sufficient armor and armaments on these ships for the task(the belt will have to be 11-12 inches) some speed will have to be sacrificed, but a group of 25 knot BCs will still have enough speed to accomplish the tasks assigned to them.

My other BC design will be one which never was tried in the real world during this time period: a large colonial cruiser. I drew one up for France which had 6*12" guns, 6.5" belt, 8" turret and CT, 28 knot speed on only a 13,500 ton displacement(50,000 hp). These ships theoretically have the speed and hitting power to outrun and outfight pretty much any other ships on colonial station.



In testing these ships shot some Austrian predreadnoughts to pieces and I have little doubt that the result would be similar against some CLs.

[Sven]

Question is how much the BCs would cost? If you use up your budget for a few BCs you will get a very unbalanced fleet.

[Sven]

I guess in my first games I will let the AI create a legacy fleet for me and start to modernise the existing designs. The result might be a little like the development of german light cruisers.

Regarding CAs or BCs. There was a logical development regarding BCs. If you went the step from predreadnought to dreadnought the step from CA to BC was only logical.
I will await the game and see. Who knows, I might forget about BCs and use the money to buy 2-4 CLs instead. Or 1-2 BBs ( who were cheaper than BCs). Looking forward to finding out.

[gornik]

Jul 7, 2015 9:56:21 GMT -6 jma286 said:

As for BCs, I'm going to build two different kinds. The first are my fleet BCs, which will serve as scouts for my battle fleet, rough up enemy scouts, and then fall into the line of battle. I'm going to model these after the German BC designs, which are tough enough to hold up against BBs at least for a while. To fit sufficient armor and armaments on these ships for the task(the belt will have to be 11-12 inches) some speed will have to be sacrificed, but a group of 25 knot BCs will still have enough speed to accomplish the tasks assigned to them.

My other BC design will be one which never was tried in the real world during this time period: a large colonial cruiser. I drew one up for France which had 6*12" guns, 6.5" belt, 8" turret and CT, 28 knot speed on only a 13,500 ton displacement(50,000 hp). These ships theoretically have the speed and hitting power to outrun and outfight pretty much any other ships on colonial station.

Great decision, and brilliant design for it! This ship is better than I'ble, and, according to SpringSharp, cheaper than she. Her real opponents may be only natural BCs, which means they can't support main fleet at that time... Her only problems may be lack of oil fuel or lack of ammo (harder to transport and store near equator I think) but I think this risk is acceptable.

[kasuga]

I have a similar idea but if i can use it as CA... 3 double turrets of 8 or maybe 2 triples and 1 double of 8... in the end to have a raider attacker or hunter + light forces bully (or cover for own light forces) i dont want it was capable of engage BCs, to dangerous for a ship that fight far from home... i prefer have them out of heavy fight.

But if using BC class is better to have speed...

[oldpop2000]

Something to consider in your fleet composition. The heavy cruiser as we know it, was the result of the Washington Naval Treaty limiting construction of battleships and providing for a holiday for ten years in their building. It limited cruisers to 10,000 tons and 8 in guns. Afterward, all nations built up to that limit and the heavy cruiser was born. Now, if the Washington Naval Treaty had never existed, would construction of dreadnought armored cruisers have continued? I believe that they would, as evidenced by the Lexington class and the Hood class. Just something to consider about which ships to build and what would be their primary and secondary missions.

[kasuga]

I know but i doubt super BCs survive a lot more even with no Washington treaty... very expensive and cant operate alone because light forces can ruin their day if dont have a perfect sunny day... and is the airpower point...

For game i feel that have in 1914 a 1930 CA with his own support (if you are not going to go far from bases add some support is posible) is more usefull and cheaper than have a super BC ... in the end use a super BC to raid enemy lines is not profitable... and if something goes wrong you lose more than a simple ship, is not like i am not going to create super BCs but i am going to made them more fighters or battleships hunters than raiders, i think is more usefull a group of 3 fast CAs than a single BC.

My goal is something closer to Deuchtland class but cheaper because i dont need invest a lot to reduce his weight... i think that Blucher was a good first true CA... maybe a little overgunned and slow but think in something like Blucher but with 3-4 turrets... even you can try use 11 guns not 8 guns and near 30knots... you can use it to hunt or fight for the fleet as light forces nightmare and why not mine ships???

[ccip]

Personally, I'm really not sold on the fact that either BCs or even smaller dedicated cruiser-killer ships would've survived reality for very much longer. I think the advent of the fast battleship made BCs redundant, and true fast battleships were already quite practical by the end of WWI.

The real question I think is quintessential for what period. Even assuming history going more or less along the lines of reality, a quintessential fleet in 1905 vs a quintessential fleet in 1915 would look pretty different, and I think advances in powerplants account for most of the difference. There's a lot of compromises that would no longer have to be made, and honestly, past about that point as a major power I would focus mainly on fast battleships, very fast but relatively inexpensive scout cruisers, and big nasty destroyer screens for the fleet, and hand off raiding tasks mostly to submarines. (Assuming carriers and aircraft don't enter the equation yet). Granted, of course, that either my situation or my opponents don't force me to adjust. Unless I see myself badly needing a cruiser-killer, or decide to rebuild some as un-killable raiders, and cost is not a factor, I would likely have all the BCs mothballed by 1920.