|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 24, 2020 12:22:54 GMT -6
If we examine some of the data that I provided in the Speed thread, we see that most hits above 10,000 yards were on turrets and hulls. So, assuming that, let's put more armor on the turrets and belts. Here is a ship built with this idea in mind. I've add gun data for a 12 inch gun. If you examine the gun data, you can now get a good idea of the range of safety for the ship you are building. With data and some data from exercises, you can get the idea of where this ship will be vulnerable to hull hits. For deck hits, it should very safe and in fact, you could drop the deck armor down to 3 inches and still be safe. Now if you meet a ship with gun calibers bigger than 12 inches, you have to revise your design. You can monitor you spy information about ships and see if you possible opponents have bigger guns. This is how you do it. Enjoy and I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 24, 2020 12:52:39 GMT -6
Here is some gun data that I have collected in a PDF and attached to my game manual. I converted my manual to a Word document then created this file and saved it to a wordpad file. After that, I copied it and pasted to the end of my manual. It works great. I am going to complete the data over time. RTW Gun Data_compressed.pdf (61.31 KB)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 24, 2020 19:05:40 GMT -6
Something strange, at least for me. I played a fleet exercise between a Mikasa battleship and fleet carrier with 37 aircraft. The reconnaissance aircraft took off, found the Mikasa but the torpedo bombers never did. One fighter squadron did launch. Hmm, must find out why.
Update: I found the post on Beginners Aircraft and it explained to me about launching a strike. I just launched one. Thanks to all.
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 27, 2020 9:52:22 GMT -6
I present the concept of an All and Everything armour scheme, where ideally (I do do some minor fluctuations) you only have two armour values, the deck and the hull. Belt=Belt Extended=Turret=Secondary=Conning Tower, while Deck=Deck Extended=Turret Roof. I feel like I am gaming the calculations in some fashion and I honestly doubt the designs are good, but I have never gotten to see them in battleship engagements. Maybe when SSMs are added it might be useful on modernized battleships depending on the penetration of such missiles. Immune to missiles and bombs, and no longer has to worry about 16 inch guns everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 27, 2020 10:08:22 GMT -6
I present the concept of an All and Everything armour scheme, where ideally (I do do some minor fluctuations) you only have two armour values, the deck and the hull. Belt=Belt Extended=Turret=Secondary=Conning Tower, while Deck=Deck Extended=Turret Roof. I feel like I am gaming the calculations in some fashion and I honestly doubt the designs are good, but I have never gotten to see them in battleship engagements. Maybe when SSMs are added it might be useful on modernized battleships depending on the penetration of such missiles. Immune to missiles and bombs, and no longer has to worry about 16 inch guns everywhere. Nice designs, but I would return to normal speed. For time period these could be good ships but will be obsolete probably by the mid-1920's.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 27, 2020 13:20:45 GMT -6
I present the concept of an All and Everything armour scheme, where ideally (I do do some minor fluctuations) you only have two armour values, the deck and the hull. Belt=Belt Extended=Turret=Secondary=Conning Tower, while Deck=Deck Extended=Turret Roof. I feel like I am gaming the calculations in some fashion and I honestly doubt the designs are good, but I have never gotten to see them in battleship engagements. Maybe when SSMs are added it might be useful on modernized battleships depending on the penetration of such missiles. Immune to missiles and bombs, and no longer has to worry about 16 inch guns everywhere. View AttachmentThere's nothing wrong or game-y about this, you're just using a huge amount of displacement on armor that's not particularly thick. For a similar period BB I would prefer to use 12" belt and turret armor if possible, whether that means something like 12/4 B/BE or 12/12 narrow belt. Your distributed armor scheme provides great protection against things which 10" of armor can protect against, but as the game progresses into the 1920s, the amount of fire that 10" of armor can stop rapidly decreases. It's pretty much infeasible to protect against 16" guns and large bombs using such a scheme, which is why IRL most everyone transitioned to all or nothing armor.
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 27, 2020 13:44:35 GMT -6
I present the concept of an All and Everything armour scheme, where ideally (I do do some minor fluctuations) you only have two armour values, the deck and the hull. Belt=Belt Extended=Turret=Secondary=Conning Tower, while Deck=Deck Extended=Turret Roof. I feel like I am gaming the calculations in some fashion and I honestly doubt the designs are good, but I have never gotten to see them in battleship engagements. Maybe when SSMs are added it might be useful on modernized battleships depending on the penetration of such missiles. Immune to missiles and bombs, and no longer has to worry about 16 inch guns everywhere. There's nothing wrong or game-y about this, you're just using a huge amount of displacement on armor that's not particularly thick. For a similar period BB I would prefer to use 12" belt and turret armor if possible, whether that means something like 12/4 B/BE or 12/12 narrow belt. Your distributed armor scheme provides great protection against things which 10" of armor can protect against, but as the game progresses into the 1920s, the amount of fire that 10" of armor can stop rapidly decreases. It's pretty much infeasible to protect against 16" guns and large bombs using such a scheme, which is why IRL most everyone transitioned to all or nothing armor. I wasn't thinking it was good so much as thinking that perhaps allocating so much armour to an area that is supposed to have maybe 6" max might have broken the displacement calculations in some fashion since it still seemed extremely light. Either way I ended up moving away from them for the reasons you mentioned and also because such a scheme is difficult to use on ships above 20ish knots simply due to the sheer weight of armour. The predreadnought class is on paper pretty good since it was fairly well armed and had a decent immunity zone against 12" guns which when it was new would be its primary opponents. Heavy cruiser class I ended up developing turned out to be good since it was outright immune to all light cruiser weapons at all combat ranges and had a large immunity zone against 8" guns. Actually developed it more as a curiosity and just ran with it for four classes (later developed a heavy cruiser class with the same scheme, IIRC 6.5" hull and 2.5" deck). "Oh hey I have a bit of displacement left, let me just bump up the belt end armour by an inch. Oh I still have some weight, lets bump it by an inch. Well I am only 3 inches from having a uniform thickness belt so lets just decrease the main belt a tiny bit and increase the belt end by a bit."
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 27, 2020 22:43:24 GMT -6
I don't think it would ever be cost effective to build such a vessel, but I got bored and designed a 1950-era, maximum displacement battleship. Interestingly, the game insists it's a "battlecruiser". Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 28, 2020 3:20:40 GMT -6
I don't think it would ever be cost effective to build such a vessel, but I got bored and designed a 1950-era, maximum displacement battleship. Interestingly, the game insists it's a "battlecruiser". Beyond ~30/31 knots, everything is classified as a BC. It makes sense: the Iowas and the Richilieus were the only designated BBs I can think of that ever exceeded 30 knots, and there's a good argument to be made that they were in fact BCs. 1) They were, respectively, the fastest and second fastest classes of capital ships ever built. 2) Their belt armor was fairly light relative to gun caliber, especially in the Iowas. Given the inclined belts, the Iowas could maybe stand up to their own fire with regular shells, but with superheavy shells, or against the Yamatos, it's much dicier. Of course, the fact that that entire generation of battleships (except the Yamatos) was gimped by the Washington treaty, even if built after the treaty was abrogated, makes defining what a ship actually was difficult, as capital ship design in the 30s was all over the map. I would argue that the Dunkerques and Scharnhorsts simply weren't capital ships by the outbreak of WWII, and the King George V class barely qualified.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 28, 2020 7:41:22 GMT -6
I don't think it would ever be cost effective to build such a vessel, but I got bored and designed a 1950-era, maximum displacement battleship. Interestingly, the game insists it's a "battlecruiser". Beyond ~30/31 knots, everything is classified as a BC. It makes sense: the Iowas and the Richilieus were the only designated BBs I can think of that ever exceeded 30 knots, and there's a good argument to be made that they were in fact BCs. 1) They were, respectively, the fastest and second fastest classes of capital ships ever built. 2) Their belt armor was fairly light relative to gun caliber, especially in the Iowas. Given the inclined belts, the Iowas could maybe stand up to their own fire with regular shells, but with superheavy shells, or against the Yamatos, it's much dicier. Of course, the fact that that entire generation of battleships (except the Yamatos) was gimped by the Washington treaty, even if built after the treaty was abrogated, makes defining what a ship actually was difficult, as capital ship design in the 30s was all over the map. I would argue that the Dunkerques and Scharnhorsts simply weren't capital ships by the outbreak of WWII, and the King George V class barely qualified. The Iowa's designed to fight the Kongo class battlecruisers, and provide a fast "wing" for the battle fleet. So, they were designed to perform battle cruiser missions. However, with Pearl Harbor and Taranto, the whole naval warfare system changed. The air wing and carriers now became the center of the fleet. This changed the Iowa's main mission. After this the Montana's were designed as traditional battleships but the course of naval warfare changed and they were cancelled.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 28, 2020 9:04:18 GMT -6
I don't think it would ever be cost effective to build such a vessel, but I got bored and designed a 1950-era, maximum displacement battleship. Interestingly, the game insists it's a "battlecruiser". Here is my version of your ship. I had to make some decisions on speed and range. I went with 19 inch guns because their quality was better. I lowered the total tonnage but had to sacrifice the two catapult aircraft. I felt with aircraft carriers, I did not need floatplanes in this era, this ship might have radar so I think that is the better solution. I went with triple turrets which have a better rate of fire and one hit will only disable three guns instead of four.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 28, 2020 9:40:24 GMT -6
I don't think it would ever be cost effective to build such a vessel, but I got bored and designed a 1950-era, maximum displacement battleship. Interestingly, the game insists it's a "battlecruiser". I researched 18 inch gun penetration and the belt armor on the Mackensen is 11.5 inches. Any range less that 24,000 yards and that armor belt can be penetrated. However, I would have to take into account the inclined nature of the belt . I have to research that . Comparing your design with the 18 inch penetration and your range is 18,000 yards. Any range lower than that, and it can be penetrated. So, is it worth it? I don't know. I guess you just have to test it.
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 28, 2020 10:01:10 GMT -6
I don't think it would ever be cost effective to build such a vessel, but I got bored and designed a 1950-era, maximum displacement battleship. Interestingly, the game insists it's a "battlecruiser". Here is my version of your ship. I had to make some decisions on speed and range. I went with 19 inch guns because their quality was better. I lowered the total tonnage but had to sacrifice the two catapult aircraft. I felt with aircraft carriers, I did not need floatplanes in this era, this ship might have radar so I think that is the better solution. I went with triple turrets which have a better rate of fire. I feel like a lot of these super heavy battleships are overgunned truth be told. By the time you are fielding these ships alongside SAMs and stuff most ships you will face are heavy cruisers or lighter, so I would be inclined to use more lighter guns to minimize weight, which can be reinvested into more deck armour eg. fielding a ship with 12x 14" guns or something as opposed to 12x 19". Alternatively I would go the opposite route, assume a single good hit from a 20" gun will be enough and go like 2x3 20" guns, still saving weight but relying more on range. Either way a bunch of super heavy guns seems redundant unless your opponents are also building super heavy battleships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 28, 2020 10:07:26 GMT -6
Here is my version of your ship. I had to make some decisions on speed and range. I went with 19 inch guns because their quality was better. I lowered the total tonnage but had to sacrifice the two catapult aircraft. I felt with aircraft carriers, I did not need floatplanes in this era, this ship might have radar so I think that is the better solution. I went with triple turrets which have a better rate of fire. I feel like a lot of these super heavy battleships are overgunned truth be told. By the time you are fielding these ships alongside SAMs and stuff most ships you will face are heavy cruisers or lighter, so I would be inclined to use more lighter guns to minimize weight, which can be reinvested into more deck armour eg. fielding a ship with 12x 14" guns or something as opposed to 12x 19". Alternatively I would go the opposite route, assume a single good hit from a 20" gun will be enough and go like 2x3 20" guns, still saving weight but relying more on range. Either way a bunch of super heavy guns seems redundant unless your opponents are also building super heavy battleships. I actually agree and I am going to modify my design to 15 or 16 inch guns
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 28, 2020 11:21:34 GMT -6
Here is the modified Seydlitz with 16 in. guns and 36 knots of speed. The gun caliber should be more than adequate for the missions of this ship; searching and destroying raiders along with fighting on the wings of the battle fleet. It will also do well escorting aircraft carriers. Attachments:
|
|