|
Post by boomboomf22 on Jun 7, 2017 0:20:36 GMT -6
Nice ships. Those lattice masts have always bugged me (Not that you used them, just their historical existence). Not one of our finer design moments I think. I What is the issue with lattice masts other than being ugly? I can't seem to find info indicating any major problems, but that is from a 5 min web search
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 7, 2017 1:01:26 GMT -6
They were less structurally sound than anticipated, and Michigan had her forward mast collapse in bad weather in 1918, with the loss of 6 lives. There were also shock and vibration problems in normal operation.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 7, 2017 1:07:10 GMT -6
The lattice masts were designed to be strong, lightweight and resistant to damage. Despite the USN sticking with them for years there doesn't seem to be much evidence in their favor. One battleship had a mast bent down to the deck (in a hurricane I think - don't remember which ship) and they were notoriously prone to vibration. Later the USN went to a heavy tripod mast and a few ships kept one of each. (USS Michigan - first of the US dreadnoughts: www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/images/usa/bb27-3.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Jun 7, 2017 1:59:18 GMT -6
Fair. Not sure why wikiped didn't have anything on it, but oh well. Having masts that don't work would be a problem. I assume the vibration issue was especially problematic for fire control
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jun 7, 2017 20:30:15 GMT -6
I wanted to make the Generals choke on their breakfast when they read the papers the day the decision was made When you are so French that you have to French at the French because no one else can appreciate how French you are.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 7, 2017 22:54:01 GMT -6
To be fair, everyone had trouble with masts and funnels, so the fact that the cage mast was imperfect didn't make it bad compared to the other methods. Masts were originally intended to hold a few lookouts and maybe some signal lights, not tons of fire control equipment, so there were lots of problems with stability, vibration and weight.
The Royal Navy tried putting the main mast behind the funnel - a spectacularly bad idea as the men atop the mast were asphyxiated, roasted and blinded. Then they moved it ahead of the funnel, but had stability and weight distribution issues, moved it behind again, then forward... There are reasons why battleship masts were supplanted by a tall single-unit superstructure.
Coal smoke is another reason so many ships added-on to funnel height. It didn't have anything to do with draft, it was to keep the smoke away from the lookouts and the people in the superstructure.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Jun 8, 2017 8:19:56 GMT -6
I wanted to make the Generals choke on their breakfast when they read the papers the day the decision was made When you are so French that you have to French at the French because no one else can appreciate how French you are. Yup! But in my defense, they started it. Lobbying Parliament to cut my funding in favor of them was a dirty underhanded move!
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 8, 2017 12:13:23 GMT -6
When you are so French that you have to French at the French because no one else can appreciate how French you are. Yup! But in my defense, they started it. Lobbying Parliament to cut my funding in favor of them was a dirty underhanded move! That was too funny. Bravo Zulu to you both.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Jul 16, 2017 7:52:22 GMT -6
Thought I'd share this CL design I've been using in a game as the US: I started with 4 of these 8" gun Protected Cruisers for fleet scouting duties (that class had a 22kt top speed) and found they were very useful for fighting other Protected Cruisers. By 1926, I have 8 such ships (4 of the Oakland Class with a top speed of 22kt and 4 of the St. Louis Class shown above). They're approaching the end of their usefulness since you can only mount 8" guns on Protected Cruisers and not Light Cruisers, but they are still proving excellent raider hunter-killers. I could rebuild the St. Louis Class to 26 knots, but I don't think it's worth it. Their service has been exemplary, but their duties are now for the new San Francisco Class Light Cruisers with their 8 6" guns and 28kt speed. Nevertheless, they'll serve well on patrol against the British in my war with them. EDIT: Literally, two turns after I posted this, the British sought a peace deal with us gaining minor concessions. Given I was by no means ready for war with Britain, I accepted.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jul 17, 2017 7:02:30 GMT -6
Yup! But in my defense, they started it. Lobbying Parliament to cut my funding in favor of them was a dirty underhanded move! That was too funny. Bravo Zulu to you both. I wish the forum had a "Like" option, so instead of posting a simple 'click' would indicate when I felt the need to add my endorsement; never-the-less!- ^ +1. LOL
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Jul 17, 2017 14:13:36 GMT -6
Okay, so, now in 1923 in a game as Austria-Hungary. This game I've been running with the idea of a Fast Battleship fleet, so my first Dreadnoughts were built as Battlecruisers, rather than Battleships, with 25kt speeds and short range. I've been a little worried about them, since they only have 12" guns and many capital ships I'm facing have 14" guns, but one engagement with the French Battlecruiser Fleet has put me at ease. The SMS Lissa was my second Dreadnought Battlecruiser, and the first to be built in Austrian yards. With 9 12" guns, she was pretty well-armed and armoured for an early battlecruiser, and was completed with extra speed than designed! She'd been involved in a previous battle with the Italian Battlecruisers, but was hobbled a bit by the older Tirol. The Karnten-Class Battlecruisers have come to represent the core of my battlefleet together with the Monarch-Class BBs. With a 12x12" broadside and acceptable armour (plus 12 5" guns in armoured twin turrets) they have proven to be effective ships even against opponents with 14" guns. I'm preparing an AAR detailing the battle where these ships proved themselves, which should be ready tomorrow. For now, here's a sneak-peek:
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2017 14:07:48 GMT -6
I would like to share my first capital ship. I started my first game as A-H and decide that my capital ships need to be cheap to counter Italy. So I build Habsburg class. I built 3 of them and their do the job. They have only 9" guns as I do not expect to penetrate anyway, I just want to put as much ordnance as I can. And I can built 3 of them with lower costs than 2 large pre-dreadnoughts But I would like to ask about suggestion to the next design. She was designed in 1914, launched 1916 and quickly get nickname "Titanic". She was the largest, fastest, best armored capital ship at the time and except my additional class constructed there was simply no ship she can handle. In her first battle she met 2 CAs that were quickly sunk. Than she find 3 ships in horizon she set course to intercept proud of herself with her maximum speed and she identified her opponents just after first shell splashed next to her. She met 3 battle-cruisers with 9" belt but armed with 12x14" guns. She quickly turn-around and used her 1 knot speed advantage to disangage. She get few hits, all of them do no damage as were unable to penetrate her thick armor. But than she get one lucky hit to her funnel decreasing her speed to 25 knots. Her future was clear. She get numerous hits from 14" guns with no significant damage but as the 3 battle-cruisers close distance to 12,000 yards the shells started to penatrate her armor finally getting hit from 4,000 yard distance and she blow up. She prove good design but her captain does not do good job. I would like to ask your opinion if there is something that could be done better in her design. She was designed to fight with long range, more than 15,000 yards.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 18, 2017 14:11:37 GMT -6
I would like to share my first capital ship. I started my first game as A-H and decide that my capital ships need to be cheap to counter Italy. So I build Habsburg class. I built 3 of them and their do the job. They have only 9" guns as I do not expect to penetrate anyway, I just want to put as much ordnance as I can. And I can built 3 of them with lower costs than 2 large pre-dreadnoughts. But I would like to ask about suggestion to the next design. She was designed in 1914, launched 1916 and quickly get nickname "Titanic". She was the largest, fastest, best armored capital ship at the time and except my additional class constructed there was simply no ship she can handle. In her first battle she met 2 CAs that were quickly sunk. Than she find 3 ships in horizon she set course to intercept proud of herself with her maximum speed and she identified her opponents just after first shell splashed next to her. She met 3 battle-cruisers with 9" belt but armed with 12x14" guns. She quickly turn-around and used her 1 knot speed advantage to disangage. She get few hits, all of them do no damage as were unable to penetrate her thick armor. But than she get one lucky hit to her funnel decreasing her speed to 25 knots. Her future was clear. She get numerous hits from 14" guns with no significant damage but as the 3 battle-cruisers close distance to 12,000 yards the shells started to penatrate her armor finally getting hit from 4,000 yard distance and she blow up. She prove good design but her captain does not do good job. I would like to ask your opinion if there is something that could be done better in her design. She was designed to fight with long range, more than 15,000 yards. Where are the pictures? Did you upload them, then insert them?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2017 14:12:43 GMT -6
I would like to share my first capital ship. I started my first game as A-H and decide that my capital ships need to be cheap to counter Italy. So I build Habsburg class. I built 3 of them and their do the job. They have only 9" guns as I do not expect to penetrate anyway, I just want to put as much ordnance as I can. And I can built 3 of them with lower costs than 2 large pre-dreadnoughts. But I would like to ask about suggestion to the next design. She was designed in 1914, launched 1916 and quickly get nickname "Titanic". She was the largest, fastest, best armored capital ship at the time and except my additional class constructed there was simply no ship she can handle. In her first battle she met 2 CAs that were quickly sunk. Than she find 3 ships in horizon she set course to intercept proud of herself with her maximum speed and she identified her opponents just after first shell splashed next to her. She met 3 battle-cruisers with 9" belt but armed with 12x14" guns. She quickly turn-around and used her 1 knot speed advantage to disangage. She get few hits, all of them do no damage as were unable to penetrate her thick armor. But than she get one lucky hit to her funnel decreasing her speed to 25 knots. Her future was clear. She get numerous hits from 14" guns with no significant damage but as the 3 battle-cruisers close distance to 12,000 yards the shells started to penatrate her armor finally getting hit from 4,000 yard distance and she blow up. She prove good design but her captain does not do good job. I would like to ask your opinion if there is something that could be done better in her design. She was designed to fight with long range, more than 15,000 yards. Where are the pictures? Did you upload them, then insert them? Some mistake in code. Corrected.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Jul 18, 2017 14:24:59 GMT -6
I would like to share my first capital ship. I started my first game as A-H and decide that my capital ships need to be cheap to counter Italy. So I build Habsburg class. I built 3 of them and their do the job. They have only 9" guns as I do not expect to penetrate anyway, I just want to put as much ordnance as I can. And I can built 3 of them with lower costs than 2 large pre-dreadnoughts But I would like to ask about suggestion to the next design. She was designed in 1914, launched 1916 and quickly get nickname "Titanic". She was the largest, fastest, best armored capital ship at the time and except my additional class constructed there was simply no ship she can handle. In her first battle she met 2 CAs that were quickly sunk. Than she find 3 ships in horizon she set course to intercept proud of herself with her maximum speed and she identified her opponents just after first shell splashed next to her. She met 3 battle-cruisers with 9" belt but armed with 12x14" guns. She quickly turn-around and used her 1 knot speed advantage to disangage. She get few hits, all of them do no damage as were unable to penetrate her thick armor. But than she get one lucky hit to her funnel decreasing her speed to 25 knots. Her future was clear. She get numerous hits from 14" guns with no significant damage but as the 3 battle-cruisers close distance to 12,000 yards the shells started to penatrate her armor finally getting hit from 4,000 yard distance and she blow up. She prove good design but her captain does not do good job. I would like to ask your opinion if there is something that could be done better in her design. She was designed to fight with long range, more than 15,000 yards. First thing I'd suggest is removing the tertiaries and using the weight saved to increase armour. Another suggestion would be to reduce to short range: unless you're planning on sending your battle fleet outside the Mediterranean, you don't need another more than short range. Again, use the weight savings for either additional armour or main artillery (if you have triple turrets, I'd revise the design to 3x3 14" guns).
|
|