|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 17, 2020 21:25:54 GMT -6
I went ahead and designed another Guided Missile cruiser that is legal and can be built. Some explanations on my design logic. 1. I don't need conning tower armor, this isn't a 1940's battleship. It is a waste of tonnage. 2. I have turrets, but I don't need real heavy armor. 3. I don't have secondaries, so I don't need secondary armor. 4. By reducing the armor to realism, I now have a 38 knot, guided missile cruiser with two SAM missile launchers. The missiles in this era are semi-active homing missiles which means they have to have a conical radar antenna to send out a beam to guide the missile to the target. They are not, fire and forget. So, they are limited by the number of missile homing radars they can provide the space for. Anyway, I like this design. I have one criticism and that is the wing turrets. You're getting a 4 gun broadside out of 8 guns. Now obviously the 6" guns are a secondary weapon compared to the missile launchers, but why not have ABXY turrets, and missile launchers in the Q and R positions? You'd double your broadside for the same weight. One problem, in the Q and R position I cannot fire the missiles forward or to the rear. They are limited to an arc of around 90 degrees at best. That leaves another 90 degrees forward and aft vulnerable. I don't like that, it isn't safe. I want a 180 degree firing arch for my missiles.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 17, 2020 21:33:05 GMT -6
I have one criticism and that is the wing turrets. You're getting a 4 gun broadside out of 8 guns. Now obviously the 6" guns are a secondary weapon compared to the missile launchers, but why not have ABXY turrets, and missile launchers in the Q and R positions? You'd double your broadside for the same weight. One problem, in the Q and R position I cannot fire the missiles forward or to the rear. They are limited to an arc of around 90 degrees at best. That leaves another 90 degrees forward and after vulnerable. I don't like that, it isn't safe. I want a 180 degree firing arch for my missiles. That's fair, I'm unsure how the game handles the firing arc for missiles. Beyond a certain distance from the ship it wouldn't matter, because the missile can be guided toward the target. Maybe A and Y triple turrets, and B/X superfiring missile launchers over them?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 17, 2020 21:46:41 GMT -6
One problem, in the Q and R position I cannot fire the missiles forward or to the rear. They are limited to an arc of around 90 degrees at best. That leaves another 90 degrees forward and after vulnerable. I don't like that, it isn't safe. I want a 180 degree firing arch for my missiles. That's fair, I'm unsure how the game handles the firing arc for missiles. Beyond a certain distance from the ship it wouldn't matter, because the missile can be guided toward the target. Maybe A and Y triple turrets, and B/X superfiring missile launchers over them? Sounds nice but you really cannot do that because the missile tracking radar, in this era must but be above the missile launcher to keep the target illuminated. The missiles in this era are termed "beam riders" I agree that I don't know how the game handles this but If I put more than two missiles, I get an error that tells me its one for one. One missile launcher and one missile tracking radar. A dual missile launcher will have one missile tracker above the launcher for each missile. SAM missiles in Vietnam were beam riders and that's how we killed them, with homing all the way killers missiles which locked on the beam and followed it to the tracking radar. You will have an air search radar to find the target, the target is passed to the missile tracker which locks on and fires the missile. Just a quick lesson in semi-active homing missiles. The AIM-7 Sparrow missile is an air to air version of the semi-active homing.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 17, 2020 22:48:56 GMT -6
1920s budget BC finds new life as 40s CG carrier escort With only rear-facing SAMs, much to oldpop's chagrin Edit: Combat testing shows Graf Spee is able to fire her SAMs forward, despite having all mounts aft. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 17, 2020 23:55:11 GMT -6
I'm unsure how the game handles the firing arc for missiles. As far as I am aware, the game does not evaluate firing arcs for surface-to-air missiles. It looks to me like your cruiser is somewhat undecided about what role it's supposed to fill. A 6" SP main battery, full 3" inclined belt / 2" deck, and only one SAM says anti-surface to me, but 3x3x6" is a fairly light main battery for a 10,000t 6" cruiser and while the 5" DP secondary battery would help with that it's also completely unarmored and thus likely to lose effectiveness relatively rapidly in a gunfight.
TP1 is what I normally use for large cruisers (anything ~8,000 tons or larger) in the late game, though if I have enough tonnage to spare and don't want to trim the ship down any I might go for TP2, and if I strongly felt that I needed tonnage for something else I might drop to TP0 - though I wouldn't be particularly happy about doing so on a 10,000-ton cruiser.
I normally put four floatplanes and two catapults on ships ~8,000 tons and larger, myself, but I will comment that I feel floatplanes fall off in usefulness in the late game - air searches are often not particularly necessary if you don't have carriers for an engagement, and by the mid- to late-'30s or the early-'40s floatplanes are starting to become noticeably inferior to carrier-borne aircraft in the reconnaissance role. I wouldn't say it's wasted tonnage, but you probably also wouldn't particularly miss the cruiser's floatplanes if you didn't have them and four floatplanes is a fair amount of tonnage you could be putting to use for something else - especially if you've put a proper hangar on the ship.
As to SAMs, one launcher is fine, two would be preferable if you can spare the tonnage and the centerline position, and three is probably too many for a ship this size given that you still need it to be reasonably capable as a conventional surface combatant. Due to missile fire control limitations, you can only make use of two launchers at a time anyways so any launchers beyond the second would mostly be for redundancy and additional ammunition, but even a typical large-scale engagement probably won't see you running out of missiles and for a 10,000t CL the value of investing in a mostly-redundant missile system is in my opinion questionable given just how much tonnage it costs to do so, especially since you're also occupying one of your six or seven centerline positions with each missile launcher when a relatively large 6" cruiser such as this probably really wants to use four or five of those positions for gun turrets so as to have a solid anti-surface armament.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 18, 2020 0:08:15 GMT -6
I'm unsure how the game handles the firing arc for missiles. As far as I am aware, the game does not evaluate firing arcs for surface-to-air missiles. It looks to me like your cruiser is somewhat undecided about what role it's supposed to fill. A 6" SP main battery, full 3" inclined belt / 2" deck, and only one SAM says anti-surface to me, but 3x3x6" is a fairly light main battery for a 10,000t 6" cruiser and while the 5" DP secondary battery would help with that it's also completely unarmored and thus likely to lose effectiveness relatively rapidly in a gunfight.
TP1 is what I normally use for large cruisers (anything ~8,000 tons or larger) in the late game, though if I have enough tonnage to spare and don't want to trim the ship down any I might go for TP2, and if I strongly felt that I needed tonnage for something else I might drop to TP0 - though I wouldn't be particularly happy about doing so on a 10,000-ton cruiser.
I normally put four floatplanes and two catapults on ships ~8,000 tons and larger, myself, but I will comment that I feel floatplanes fall off in usefulness in the late game - air searches are often not particularly necessary if you don't have carriers for an engagement, and by the mid- to late-'30s or the early-'40s floatplanes are starting to become noticeably inferior to carrier-borne aircraft in the reconnaissance role. I wouldn't say it's wasted tonnage, but you probably also wouldn't particularly miss the cruiser's floatplanes if you didn't have them and four floatplanes is a fair amount of tonnage you could be putting to use for something else - especially if you've put a proper hangar on the ship.
As to SAMs, one launcher is fine, two would be preferable if you can spare the tonnage and the centerline position, and three is probably too many for a ship this size given that you still need it to be reasonably capable as a conventional surface combatant. Due to missile fire control limitations, you can only make use of two launchers at a time anyways so any launchers beyond the second would mostly be for redundancy and additional ammunition, but even a typical large-scale engagement probably won't see you running out of missiles and for a 10,000t CL the value of investing in a mostly-redundant missile system is in my opinion questionable given just how much tonnage it costs to do so, especially since you're also occupying one of your six or seven centerline positions with each missile launcher when a relatively large 6" cruiser such as this probably really wants to use four or five of those positions for gun turrets so as to have a solid anti-surface armament.
The lineage of the design is a 4x3x6" cruiser where the aft superfiring 6" turret has been replaced with a SAM launcher. I suppose if I wanted to specialize it more towards AA I could do the forward superfiring turret as well, but I want a large CL to fill pretty much every role smaller than a BC and larger than a DD. Obviously what it can't do is fight a beefy 14-15kt CA, but I have small 20kt BCs to hunt them. The diminished usefulness of floatplanes is interesting. I tend to use floatplane search priority so my carriers can maximize their strikes, but with my new 100 plane CVs I'm finding spotting area is more of a limitation than actual planes. My next generation may cut down to 2 planes and 1 catapult. I like to keep planes both because it supposedly helps with raiding and trade protection, and occasionally having a lone CL fly a search pattern in a battle can do something useful (although not often). Of course, 4 floatplane strike missions are amusing, but not a good reason to keep them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 18, 2020 7:05:24 GMT -6
1920s budget BC finds new life as 40s CG carrier escort With only rear-facing SAMs, much to oldpop's chagrin Edit: Combat testing shows Graf Spee is able to fire her SAMs forward, despite having all mounts aft. Nice ship but I would not build a guided missile cruiser of that size, I would keep her in the light or heavy cruiser range. Its just me. I am still not certain the game is depicting how this missile system would work properly. Anyway, good work. www.okieboat.com/SPG-49%20description.html
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 18, 2020 7:26:36 GMT -6
Here is a rebuild of a 1935 German heavy cruiser. I replaced the aft triple mount 8 inch. gun turret with two SAM batteries. I improved the fire control, reduced he 5 inch guns to just six in two gun turrets amidship, and was able to get her to 34 knots to maintain speed with the carriers. I am going to do more mods to her.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 18, 2020 8:08:54 GMT -6
Disclaimer: I will always indicate whether a design is legal or not. The following design can be built. The ones that could not, I will indicate as theoretical. Here is my first attempt at a DDG or guided missile destroyer - The Charles F. Adams which actually existed. It has one SAM launcher aft on the main deck. The aft 5 in. is superimposed.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 18, 2020 10:51:31 GMT -6
I wonder if SAMs aren't available a little too early. IRL they weren't operationally deployed on ships until well into the 1950s, but in my Germany game (where the designs I've posted came from) I had multiple classes of CG and CLG in service by 1950, at 80% tech rate. That would be like rushing SAMs into service for the end of WW2!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 18, 2020 11:28:03 GMT -6
That would be like rushing SAMs into service for the end of WW2! There were some Second World War SAM development projects - e.g. the US Navy's KAN/KAM Little Joe and KAQ/KAY/SAM-N-2 Lark programs or Britain's Brakemine and Fairey Stooge programs - which could probably have produced operational missile systems if the war had lasted another year or two, but the end of the war largely removed any immediate need for them, with consequent reductions in the priority given to developing them into a service-ready state, and by the early '50s most of them had been abandoned in favor of postwar projects that showed more promise for engaging the faster jets that were coming into service in the late-'40s and the '50s.
The effectiveness of such early SAMs may however be exaggerated within the game.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 18, 2020 11:32:35 GMT -6
I wonder if SAMs aren't available a little too early. IRL they weren't operationally deployed on ships until well into the 1950s, but in my Germany game (where the designs I've posted came from) I had multiple classes of CG and CLG in service by 1950, at 80% tech rate. That would be like rushing SAMs into service for the end of WW2! The first operational naval surface to air system was, I believe the Terrier which became operational on board the USS Boston in 1955. The Talos was operational in 1959. As Aeson has said, Germany had some surface to air missile systems in development but the war ended. It would be nice to be able to install surface to air systems on land bases. Systems like the Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules would be great.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 18, 2020 12:03:26 GMT -6
That would be like rushing SAMs into service for the end of WW2! There were some Second World War SAM development projects - e.g. the US Navy's KAN/KAM Little Joe and KAQ/KAY/SAM-N-2 Lark programs or Britain's Brakemine and Fairey Stooge programs - which could probably have produced operational missile systems if the war had lasted another year or two, but the end of the war largely removed any immediate need for them, with consequent reductions in the priority given to developing them into a service-ready state, and by the early '50s most of them had been abandoned in favor of postwar projects that showed more promise for engaging the faster jets that were coming into service in the late-'40s and the '50s.
The effectiveness of such early SAMs may however be exaggerated within the game.
While systems like Lark, Wasserfall and Stooge were under serious development by the end of the war, it would have likely taken at least a few more years to have them in service aboard warships. At the very least you need to extensively refit the ship receiving the missiles, if not build new ships entirely. So if Lark had been ready in 1946, it probably wouldn't be in-theater until 1947-48(?). If you can have ships in service with SAMs by 1950 on 80% tech rate, that seems at least a few years too early.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 18, 2020 12:16:26 GMT -6
I tried to put a SAM on a Corvette with no luck, far too heavy. So, I developed this 2000 ton DDG. It does have light and medium AA, ASW mortar and one K-gun along with a 4 tube torpedo launcher. She is a diesel, which I thought was fun. Now, if you are wondering where the name came from, it is a small town, 150 miles north of San Francisco on Coast Highway one. I was stationed on the mountain top in a long range radar station in 1969 and beginning of 1970. It was a controlled 15 month tour. Great view of the Pacific, Russian fishing boats ( actually spy ships) and the San Andreas Fault.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 18, 2020 14:40:20 GMT -6
I tried to put a SAM on a Corvette with no luck, far too heavy. Even has full ASW and minesweeping gear, three AA directors, and five medium AA guns. I probably wouldn't build something like this, because a corvette's mission profile within the game means that a SAM installation is very much a luxury rather than a necessity, but it can be done if you wanted to do so. I might suggest investigating ways to improve the gun armament; as much as guns dropped out of favor in the real world as increasingly-capable missile systems and attack aircraft entered service, that's not the environment we face in the game and a 2,000-ton destroyer with only two 5" guns available for use against surface targets is not going to perform well as a surface combatant but will most likely find itself asked to act in that role.
|
|