|
Post by vensalir on Mar 27, 2017 14:57:55 GMT -6
That's one beautiful ship you have there. Very nice camouflage, too !
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 5, 2017 17:36:55 GMT -6
Now nearing the end of a game as USA, and this particular design is one I'm really proud of: In 1917, the Treaty of London limited all Warship construction to 15,000t and a maximum armament of 10". In response, the DNC ordered the development of a ship which took the treaty terms to their absolute limit. The Northampton-Class were effectively designed as 'Pocket Battlecruisers', with a top speed of 26 knots, 11" of belt armour, an all-or-nothing armour scheme, and 6 10" Rifles mounted in two triple turrets, with the intention to up-gun the ship to 4 12" rifles at a later date. In 1918, a short war with France abrogated the treaty and allowed the Navy to take the USS Northampton and USS New York in hand for re-arming. Due to weight limits, two secondary guns had to be removed from each ship, bringing their total down to 10 6" guns; their torpedoes were removed and they received engine 'modernisation' as well as modern fire directors. Two additional Northamptons laid down before the war were cancelled in favour of a new full Battlecruiser. Above: USS Northampton following her 1918 rebuild.In 1924, during the Third Franco-American War, USS Northampton and the Louisville-Class Heavy Cruiser USS Frederick commenced a coastal raid against French shipping of the Bordeaux coastline. The Northampton performed admirably, her 12-inch guns and high speed allowing her to engage numerous targets before disengaging. However, when the task force encountered a French patrol led by the French Heavy Cruiser Montcalm (a Solferino-Class: effectively a response to the Northampton design with a 9" belt and 6 10" guns in 3 twin turrets), a delay in releasing the task force from orders to hold fire (because I'm special that way ) resulted in Northampton taking heavy damage and a torpedo hit before she and Frederick finally returned fire. Once Northampton began firing however, the Montcalm took serious damage and was forced to disengage. Northampton successfully disengaged from the action with the courageous defence of the Frederick. Despite the heavy damage and the technical defeat inflicted on the Northampton, the Navy Department was sufficiently impressed with the 'pocket battlecruisers' that the next month the USS Independence was ordered. This ship was to be armed with 4 12" rifles in 2 twin turrets; two triple deck-mounted torpedo launches, 12 6" secondary guns in 4 triple turrets, and a speed of 28 knots. It would also receive stronger armour.
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Apr 10, 2017 20:52:44 GMT -6
the culmination of all cruisers i give you the Super heavy cruiser Roon i haven't completed one yet but the prototype Yorck ( wing turrets no superimposed and only 10 10in guns) absolutely massacred russian cruisers in every fight she got a 9 in belt isnt something to be laughed at and the lucky break of getting AON before 1912 allowed her to disregard hit that weren't to the belt
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Apr 12, 2017 6:15:04 GMT -6
What role does she actually fill? It looks like a good cruiser, but she will probably suffer the same problems as the historical Blucher. I would tend to drop the guns to 8", thin out the belt and increase her speed. 26kts is the problematical speed you really want to avoid for heavy scouts (other than early BC's), because you have invested a lot of weight for the speed without actually being able to match or outrun likely opponents.
By the time you build her, CA's would likely be relegated to the colonies, and she isn't fast enough to catch the fastest of the raiders she would encounter. If you want a pocket BC, up the tonnage and giver her more speed.
Just make sure she doesn't try and slug it out with a real BC.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 12, 2017 9:00:10 GMT -6
What role does she actually fill? It looks like a good cruiser, but she will probably suffer the same problems as the historical Blucher. I would tend to drop the guns to 8", thin out the belt and increase her speed. 26kts is the problematical speed you really want to avoid for heavy scouts (other than early BC's), because you have invested a lot of weight for the speed without actually being able to match or outrun likely opponents. By the time you build her, CA's would likely be relegated to the colonies, and she isn't fast enough to catch the fastest of the raiders she would encounter. If you want a pocket BC, up the tonnage and giver her more speed. Just make sure she doesn't try and slug it out with a real BC. Her role was essentially stop-gap. When the Treaty came into effect, I had 2 true BCs and 2 more building (trying to rapidly catch up with other powers). So, with my BC line heavily handicapped versus every other nation I was likely to face, I needed a ship which could fill the role of fleet scout and coastal raider without getting blown to pieces by enemy BCs. The Northamptons were the result. I was so short on BC tonnage to begin with, I was more concerned about making sure these ships could take hits than I was about making sure they could catch up. For the job of the traditional Heavy Cruiser, I designed the Louiseville-Class. The two designs actually complemented each other very well in the war with France. As for raider intercepts, even 2 knots slower than most CLs and CAs at the time, she can keep her guns on target long enough to get some hits in, and with 10" and 12" guns (1917 and 1918 versions, respectively), it only takes a couple of hits to bring enemy ships to a standstill. Finally, the treaty meant that just about every other nation was forced to build CAs instead of BCs anyway (and a lot were essentially copies of these). However, as you say, they were no substitute for a true BC and were too slow for a fleet CA. That's why I scrapped the last two ships of the class on the slips when war with France broke out in favour of a new BC. But I was so pleased with the class that I decided to use the design as a basis for a new class of 'light' BC, which I'll dig up later.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 12, 2017 11:51:51 GMT -6
As promised, here are some more of my designs from that US Game: The Louisville-Class was designed in parallel with the Northampton to replace the older pre-dreadnought Armoured Cruisers. They were designed to operate as Fleet Heavy Cruisers and as patrol cruisers, with the speed (28 knots) to keep up with enemy raiders and the firepower and armour (8 8-inch guns and 6/5 inches of belt armour) to fight contemporary Heavy Cruisers. The class proved effective as a support cruiser and interceptor, with the U.S.S. Frederick supporting the U.S.S. New York (Northampton-Class) in raiding shipping off the French Coast, covering the New York as it disengaged following an error in judgement causing the pair to come under fire from a French patrol for 10 minutes without returning fire. The Independence-Class was a light Battlecruiser based on the Northampton-Class following the New York's promising performance off the French Coast. 1,000 tons larger, the Independence was to receive a boosted secondary armament, a 28-knot speed to allow it to keep up with opposing cruisers, and heavier armour. She was effectively designed as a 'cruiser-killer' with the speed and protection to escape or avoid heavier opposing forces. When the game ended in January 1926, the first of the two ships was slated to launch in mid-1928, with the second ship, U.S.S. Concorde, following in January 1929. Encouraged by the success of the Louisville-Class and the effectiveness with which it and the Northamptons operated in tandem, the Rochester-Class was designed in parallel with the Independence-Class to further boost the heavy cruiser fleet. Armed with 12 8-inch guns, a formidable secondary armament of 12 4-inch guns in triple turrets, and sets of above-water torpedo launchers, these ships were partly designed in response to the 'Northampton-likes' of other navies. Now unencumbered by the constraints of the London Naval Treaty of 1917, the Rochesters would have displaced 16,000 tons. At the end of the game, the two initial ships of the class (Rochester and Brooklyn) were scheduled for December 1926 and January 1927 respectively. The London Naval Treaty effectively ended the race for Battlecruisers. In this game, for what ever reason, GB designed a "Battle-Cruiser" early on which was really more of a Fast Battleship, and that set everyone else off building ships to match. After the treaty expired, technology had advanced to the point where such ships were properly being designated Battleships and battle-cruiser construction slowed to a crawl.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Apr 12, 2017 12:26:56 GMT -6
That Louisville class is a pretty good design for an armored cruiser. Balances respectable firepower with speed, armor, and more importantly, is affordable. The 2nd biggest reason why I think ACs tend to get knocked (after the BC cruiser battle problem) is that a lot of designs tend to be BC lights, which is fine, but tends to drive up the displacement, and the cost. How much did they cost to build? Since the USA is one of those "we have too few CAs", affordability becomes a big consideration.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 12, 2017 13:49:10 GMT -6
That Louisville class is a pretty good design for an armored cruiser. Balances respectable firepower with speed, armor, and more importantly, is affordable. The 2nd biggest reason why I think ACs tend to get knocked (after the BC cruiser battle problem) is that a lot of designs tend to be BC lights, which is fine, but tends to drive up the displacement, and the cost. How much did they cost to build? Since the USA is one of those "we have too few CAs", affordability becomes a big consideration. The Louisvilles cost approximately $48,000,000 each and took 24 months each to build (before modifiers, etc.). By comparison, the Rochesters each cost $57,500,000 and took 25 months. The Two Northamptons each cost $53,000,000 at launch, with their final designs costing $53,500,000 for Rochester and £53,700,000 for New York. The Independence Class cost $60,400,000. Overall, I think I agree with you on the Louisville. In hindsight, I think I would have pulled off the aft turret on the Rochesters and reduced their tonnage. EDIT: Just did some testing on the Louisville design. Turns out just adding as much armour as I did to the Rochester added almost $10,000,000 to the cost! With two triple turrets forward and one aft, improved director and 12 4-inch guns in 4 triple mounts, the Louisville comes to around $48-49,000,000. Not that much of a price difference and on the same displacement.
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Apr 13, 2017 9:02:39 GMT -6
What role does she actually fill? It looks like a good cruiser, but she will probably suffer the same problems as the historical Blucher. I would tend to drop the guns to 8", thin out the belt and increase her speed. 26kts is the problematical speed you really want to avoid for heavy scouts (other than early BC's), because you have invested a lot of weight for the speed without actually being able to match or outrun likely opponents. By the time you build her, CA's would likely be relegated to the colonies, and she isn't fast enough to catch the fastest of the raiders she would encounter. If you want a pocket BC, up the tonnage and giver her more speed. Just make sure she doesn't try and slug it out with a real BC. Her role was essentially stop-gap. When the Treaty came into effect, I had 2 true BCs and 2 more building (trying to rapidly catch up with other powers). So, with my BC line heavily handicapped versus every other nation I was likely to face, I needed a ship which could fill the role of fleet scout and coastal raider without getting blown to pieces by enemy BCs. The Northamptons were the result. I was so short on BC tonnage to begin with, I was more concerned about making sure these ships could take hits than I was about making sure they could catch up. For the job of the traditional Heavy Cruiser, I designed the Louiseville-Class. The two designs actually complemented each other very well in the war with France. As for raider intercepts, even 2 knots slower than most CLs and CAs at the time, she can keep her guns on target long enough to get some hits in, and with 10" and 12" guns (1917 and 1918 versions, respectively), it only takes a couple of hits to bring enemy ships to a standstill. Finally, the treaty meant that just about every other nation was forced to build CAs instead of BCs anyway (and a lot were essentially copies of these). However, as you say, they were no substitute for a true BC and were too slow for a fleet CA. That's why I scrapped the last two ships of the class on the slips when war with France broke out in favour of a new BC. But I was so pleased with the class that I decided to use the design as a basis for a new class of 'light' BC, which I'll dig up later. My post was in relation to the super Roon posted above my post, lol
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 13, 2017 11:07:32 GMT -6
I moved my carrier design to the general discussion thread that has my Springsharp designs. Better spot.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 15, 2017 14:35:20 GMT -6
Now finishing a game as France (May 1924) and thought I'd share some of my designs from that game. Firstly, two of my main Battlecruisers from that game: The Lyon, commissioned in 1921, was designed to counter the large Battlecruiser fleet in German service. While she was not completed in time for the brief Franco-German War of 1919, she did see service in the war against Austria-Hungary in 1923, participating in the Battle of Sirte, assisting in the sinking of one Austrian Battlecruisers and the crippling of two more along with the older French Battlecruiser Duquesne. The Battle of Sirte ultimately forced the surrender of the Austrian regime in the following months. Such was the ship's performance that it would become the model for all future French Battlecruiser designs*. *By 'all', I mean one, given France is so pathetically poor compared to the UK and the US (and that the war ended shortly after my next BC was laid down and I had a BB a few months from completion. The Dunkerque, laid down in 1922 following the Battle of Sirte, is an enlarged Lyon, designed to match the newest French Battleships then under construction. Mounting 9 15-inch guns and even more heavily armoured than her predecessor, the Dunkerque would have been the most heavily-protected and one of the most heavily-armed Battlecruisers then in existence. At the time of writing, she is due for completion in 1927-28, though her construction has been suspended for financial reasons until the Battleship Brennus is completed.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Apr 15, 2017 15:09:10 GMT -6
Now, here are my favourite BB designs from that game: Completed in 1913-14, the two ships of the Massena-Class represent the Marine Nationale's first generation of 'Super-Dreadnought'. Armed with 8 13-inch guns mounted along the centreline, unlike most of its foreign competitors, the Massenas came to form the core of the Northern Fleet and the Mediterranean Fleet in both the Franco-German War and the Second Mediterranean War. Completed in 1916, the Battleships of the Marengo-Class were a massive jump in armament from their predecessors, fitting 8 15-inch guns on a displacement 6,000 tons greater than her predecessor. Alongside the Massenas, these two ships also formed the core of the Battlefleet throughout their service life, with the two ships of the class participating in the Battle of the Helgoland Bight, where they sank the German Dreadnought Hessen, built in 1912, and damaged two Preussen-Class Dreadnoughts from the period 1908-12. They also participated in the Battle of Sirte against the Austrian Battlecruiser Division, damaging two Battlecruisers and defending the North African Convoys alongside Battlecruisers Lyon and Duquesne. The Republique-Class is the latest class of Battleship to enter service, with Republique joining the Northern Fleet in 1923, shortly after the end of the Second Mediterranean War against Austria-Hungary. Part of a new generation of 'Fast Battleships', the Republiques make 24kn at full speed and mount 9 15-inch guns in 3 triple turrets. They are the most heavily-armoured ships in the Maritime Nationale, being the first to withstand 15-inch shellfire to their turrets out to a range of 18,000 metres and to its belt and deck out to a range of approximately 20,000 metres and 15,000 metres respectively. Republique's sister ship, Brennus, is expected to join the fleet in 1925 following delays due to budget shortages. The two ships are expected to replace the first-generation Dreadnoughts Courbet and Redoubtable, now at the end of their tactical usefulness (10 12-inch guns, short range, 20kn, and relatively weak armour), with the new 'Light' Battleship (24,600 tons) Devastation, replacing the equally under-powered and also under-gunned Colbert (Formerly the Austrian Dreadnought Monarch).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 16, 2017 21:43:31 GMT -6
Moved my carrier design to General History where it belongs. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Apr 16, 2017 22:02:52 GMT -6
What does "power going to wave formation" mean in practical terms? Is that saying that 51% of the ships propulsion is effectively lost to friction if it's going at full speed?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 16, 2017 22:10:27 GMT -6
What does "power going to wave formation" mean in practical terms? Is that saying that 51% of the ships propulsion is effectively lost to friction if it's going at full speed? Yup, that's it. What It tells you is that to get more speed out of ship, you really have to increase the propulsion system power output. There are some formula's for all this. Just one or two knots will take a lot of extra power. One reason for the bulbous bow is to interfere with wave making. I might change the bow and see if this figure goes down. This is all pretty complex. UPDATE: Changing to either a straight or forward bulbous bow made no difference. However, reducing the max speed to 24 knots, which is only two knots slower, reduced that power going to wave formation to 47%. Required engine horsepower dropped from 76743 hp. to 56184 hp. Changing the block coefficient by lowering it, only changed the above figure upward to 48%.
|
|