Best ships and designs

[oldpop2000]

Jan 31, 2023 22:22:49 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

Jan 31, 2023 7:21:04 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Yes, that is true. So 18 degree inclination would mean 72 degrees. Using the calculator, 72 means a relative thickness of 12.6 inches.

It's using trigonometry to calculate Line of Sight thickness.

I've not checked if this is correct by comparing proofing shots made against armour of known thickness and angle. However, I understand a part of the idea of angled armour is to deflect the tip of the shell before it 'bites' into the armour which would also affect penetration.

Yes, you are correct.

[zederfflinger]

Ok, it looks like I was partially right. In the 1920's it appears that the RN felt it was the equivalent of 14-15in, and later they revised it to 13in give or take a bit.

[oldpop2000]

Feb 1, 2023 7:43:03 GMT -6 zederfflinger said:

Ok, it looks like I was partially right. In the 1920's it appears that the RN felt it was the equivalent of 14-15in, and later they revised it to 13in give or take a bit.

"Hood’s 12in side armour was angled at 12° making it the equivalent of about 14–15in of vertical armour."

Brown, David K.. The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922 (p. 272). Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition.

Update: I found this onlline, it confirms what you stated and it makes much more sense that 15 in.

'The Grand Fleet' Brown states that the Hood's inclined 12 in belt was the equivalent of a 14 or 15 in vertical belt. This was the view also, I believe, of Attwood, one the the RN's constructors around 1920. Later, in the 1930s, the RN changed its view and official immunity zones show that the inclined belt was not considered better than a vertical one. At the second enquiry into the loss of the Hood, the ordnance expert Offord stated that the Hood's 12 in inclined belt (most sources give inclined at 12 deg but sometimes 10 deg) plus 1.5 in of backing plus 2 in sloping deck (two 1 in HT plates) was the equivalent of a 13 in vertical belt.

I realize the answer depends on what range (and therefore angle of fall) is desired for the inner edge of the immunity zone. As Hood was of pre-Jutland design where the outer edge (depending on ricochet from the decks and burster + splinter effect for hits on the side above the main belt) was only about 18000 yds, the inner edge would need to be about 10000 yds.

[malthaussen]

So, Randy was kind of nice to me in this my first game of RtW2, played as the US (because I like being on Easy mode) at 80% tech advancement (because I want to play with ships, not airplanes).

In March of 1909, US discovered superimposed B and X turrets in the same turn. In May 1910, I discovered triple turrets. In October of 1910, discovered Q0 15" while all other capital ship armament was Q-1, and 16" undiscovered. Then in November, Q1 15" were discovered. By now, my shipyard was 39,500 tons.

The resulting design has 9-15" (3X3), 24-6" (in turrets), with Reliable oil-fired engines making 25 knots, Central Firing (best I have right now), 13" belt and 12.5" on the turrets (I'd like more, but can't put it on this displacement right now).  Torpedo Defense of 1 (again, best I have). 'Way before AON armor or some of the other goodies, she's just be laid down in Feb of '12 and will take 32 months to build at a monthly cost of $4,427,000 or a total of $146,081,00, delays and cost overruns exclusive.  She far outmatches anything else out there, even the British, though some of their ships come close. Nothing comes within 10,000 tons of this beast.  She has 136 tons remaining for modifications.  She seems like a pretty nice ship.  Her bigger sister (with 12-15" in four turrets) would take 49000 tons, far more than I can lay down right now.

The matching BC would make 26 knots and have 1" less belt armor, but be otherwise identical, for $149,370,000.

(Incidentally, I have a question about those turrets: I haven't gotten Improved Triple Turrets yet. When I do, will the improvement be applied retroactively?)

I could slow her to, say 20 knots, and that would save 2300 tons for armor. Making the engines Normal would make that 2523, not a significant difference. 19 knots would add another thousand tons for armor, for 3449 available. That would allow rather a lot more armor (at least 15" for the belt and turrets). But I like the speed, this is a ship that (maybe?) will be useful for another decade or so.  Britain already has 21 knot BBs, anyway.
Or, not. I'd be interested in thoughts on the subject.  At the least, she's a hell of a vanity project.

(I'd post a picture of the design screen, but haven't figured out how to do it)

 -- Mal

[zederfflinger]

Jun 1, 2023 15:29:17 GMT -6 malthaussen said:

So, Randy was kind of nice to me in this my first game of RtW2, played as the US (because I like being on Easy mode) at 80% tech advancement (because I want to play with ships, not airplanes).

In March of 1909, US discovered superimposed B and X turrets in the same turn. In May 1910, I discovered triple turrets. In October of 1910, discovered Q0 15" while all other capital ship armament was Q-1, and 16" undiscovered. Then in November, Q1 15" were discovered. By now, my shipyard was 39,500 tons.

The resulting design has 9-15" (3X3), 24-6" (in turrets), with Reliable oil-fired engines making 25 knots, Central Firing (best I have right now), 13" belt and 12.5" on the turrets (I'd like more, but can't put it on this displacement right now).  Torpedo Defense of 1 (again, best I have). 'Way before AON armor or some of the other goodies, she's just be laid down in Feb of '12 and will take 32 months to build at a monthly cost of $4,427,000 or a total of $146,081,00, delays and cost overruns exclusive.  She far outmatches anything else out there, even the British, though some of their ships come close. Nothing comes within 10,000 tons of this beast.  She has 136 tons remaining for modifications.  She seems like a pretty nice ship.  Her bigger sister (with 12-15" in four turrets) would take 49000 tons, far more than I can lay down right now.

The matching BC would make 26 knots and have 1" less belt armor, but be otherwise identical, for $149,370,000.

(Incidentally, I have a question about those turrets: I haven't gotten Improved Triple Turrets yet. When I do, will the improvement be applied retroactively?)

I could slow her to, say 20 knots, and that would save 2300 tons for armor. Making the engines Normal would make that 2523, not a significant difference. 19 knots would add another thousand tons for armor, for 3449 available. That would allow rather a lot more armor (at least 15" for the belt and turrets). But I like the speed, this is a ship that (maybe?) will be useful for another decade or so.  Britain already has 21 knot BBs, anyway.
Or, not. I'd be interested in thoughts on the subject.  At the least, she's a hell of a vanity project.

(I'd post a picture of the design screen, but haven't figured out how to do it)

 -- Mal

What is the speed of the other ships in your battleline? If you already have a number of decent dreadnoughts, it might be wise to design this to match their speed, on the other hand, perhaps this is the time for you to establish a new standard battleline speed.

Also, I would probably drop the reliable engines for the extra armor. I don't think it's too useful, and weight is precious. If you have more than 2in on your secondaries, you could drop them to the aforementioned level for considerable savings. 

[malthaussen]

As of that point I had only 3 BB which were not really great (especially as they were armed with 6 -1Q 14", which was the best gun I had at the time).  So, in essence, this ship did establish a speed standard for my battleline (which didn't get too big).

Now I'm in 1918, and the "big sister" mentioned in the OP with 4X3 15" has just launched. Still vastly ahead of anyone else (although the crafty Brits have just discovered 18" guns, and good luck to them).  But now I'm fiddling around trying to go whole hog with 28-knot fast battleships, with the 3X3 armament. Can't quite make it on 50,000 tons, but I can do 27.

Since I have yet to have a single BB engagement, I'm starting to think the question is kind of moot.

As of June 1918, I have 8 BB: the aforesaid three starter dreadnoughts, three of the Arizona class, a BC that the game demanded to convert to a BB when I refit her, and the new big battleship.  Since only Britain has more (with 11), and they all have less armor and 21 or less speed, I think I'm still ahead of the game.

  -- Mal 

[malthaussen]

Now for something completely different: I love destroyers, and was looking forward to creating something vaguely similar to the US Goldplaters of the 30's. At 80% research, I just got 1500 ton DD in January of 1921, and here she is, a first approximation:  35 knots, Normal tuning (although Speed would save tons, I'd rather have Reliable so they don't break down mid-battle), 4X4" superimposed B and X, and 6 TT (2X3), which is all I can cram onto the hull right now. Can't even add a couple of Ma Deuces, the ship is at max displacement this way. 150 tons larger than the Farragut, but almost 15 years earlier!

So close, but not quite a cigar. The main battery is 4" because they'll become DP first (someday), and anyway 5" would weigh too much. Six TT is not many (although in WW2, most of the Bensons and Gleaves were cut down to 1X5 to add AA, and the Farraguts had only 2X4 launchers).  34 knots would save me a hundred tons, but I want that extra knot!

They do cost 5 mil per unit, but this IS the USA we're talking about.

  -- Mal

[ewaldvonkleist]

Jun 3, 2023 14:11:13 GMT -6 malthaussen said:

Now for something completely different: I love destroyers, and was looking forward to creating something vaguely similar to the US Goldplaters of the 30's. At 80% research, I just got 1500 ton DD in January of 1921, and here she is, a first approximation:  35 knots, Normal tuning (although Speed would save tons, I'd rather have Reliable so they don't break down mid-battle), 4X4" superimposed B and X, and 6 TT (2X3), which is all I can cram onto the hull right now. Can't even add a couple of Ma Deuces, the ship is at max displacement this way. 150 tons larger than the Farragut, but almost 15 years earlier!

So close, but not quite a cigar. The main battery is 4" because they'll become DP first (someday), and anyway 5" would weigh too much. Six TT is not many (although in WW2, most of the Bensons and Gleaves were cut down to 1X5 to add AA, and the Farraguts had only 2X4 launchers).  34 knots would save me a hundred tons, but I want that extra knot!

They do cost 5 mil per unit, but this IS the USA we're talking about.

  -- Mal

What do you need the extra speed for? In 1929 you are easily faster than any non-DD. I would rather have extra torps than the speed.

[director]

I believe you'd come out better to use Speed engines for DDs - they are reasonably reliable and they do save you a lot of weight. Also, dropping speed to 34 knots would open up some tonnage for other things.

[malthaussen]

The point was to approximate the Goldplaters, hence they need to be as fast as possible. Those DDs were designed for 36.5 knots, but 37 is very hard to achieve this early in the game.
I'm relatively new to the game, I have taken to using speed-tuned engines for DDs, there are usually only a couple who blow their condensers at the start of a war.
But the number of torpedo mounts is limited by the fact that only 6 centerline mounts are possible on DDs of 1500 or more tons. So if I want four guns, I'm limited to two centerline torpedo tubes. Now, even though the Gridley-Bagley-Benham classes had 16 torpedo tubes in 4X4 mounts, they were organized on the sides of the ships, not centerline, so they really could only launch 8 in a broadside. So I feel like 2X4 centerline TT mounts is a fair compromise, especially as you couldn't cram 4 on even a 2000 ton DD.

-- Mal