|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 15, 2021 15:32:29 GMT -6
Just thought I would put my 4 cents ( inflation) into this discussion. Here is design 1 for the French Duquesne class Battle Cruiser. I just started the game, so bigger guns really are available yet, but I believe these are good enough.  The ship is designed to be deployed in the Mediterranean against the Italians and/or the British. She could handle the Germans and the British, but I would upgrade her more. Update: Here is my second design, generated from a battle cruiser design already produced. she has a longer range and is faster. She is designed for operations in the North Atlantic and possibly the South Atlantic and maybe Southeast Asia.  |
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Feb 15, 2021 16:39:20 GMT -6
Looks pretty nice! The low secondary armor makes me a little nervous though. I just inflicted 4 flash fires on my enemy in the last battle I fought and seeing 8" guns with 2" of armor is something I wouldn't have the stones to try to pull off. lol. I also figure you'd probably be able to get better than 28 knots by that point right? 28 is starting to feel a little slow for the BCs I have and figure 30's are just around the corner for me. Was it a cost saving decision?
Edit: I think I prefer your 2nd ship out of the 2 though probably wouldn't want my secondary to be casemented and would probably try to go for higher turret armor considering you've got them condensed into triples which would make it essentially cheaper right? It's interesting you give more rounds to the ship with the bigger guns and slower rate of fire. I assume it's primarily because you expect them to be fighting longer against more serious threats than what the other would face in overseas stations.
1 more edit: Is there a reason you leave so much spare displacement room? Am I making a mistake leaving so little on mine?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 15, 2021 16:49:10 GMT -6
Looks pretty nice! The low secondary armor makes me a little nervous though. I just inflicted 4 flash fires on my enemy in the last battle I fought and seeing 8" guns with 2" of armor is something I wouldn't have the stones to try to pull off. lol. I also figure you'd probably be able to get better than 28 knots by that point right? 28 is starting to feel a little slow for the BCs I have and figure 30's are just around the corner for me. Was it a cost saving decision? Edit: I think I prefer your 2nd ship out of the 2 though probably wouldn't want my secondary to be casemented and would probably try to go for higher turret armor considering you've got them condensed into triples which would make it essentially cheaper right? It's interesting you give more rounds to the ship with the bigger guns and slower rate of fire. I assume it's primarily because you expect them to be fighting longer against more serious threats than what the other would face in overseas stations. Thanks. I am trying with difficulty, to match the design to geographical area and mission or missions. Again, I really would need but I haven't had time to review what the Italians are building. Of the two, I do like the second, but speed cost money and I had to sacrifice some armor to get the speed out of number two. It's a balancing act, like all naval ship building. It's the same with aviation and believe me I know that subject very well. Almost all the naval aircraft I worked on were just that, balancing acts. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 15, 2021 19:21:42 GMT -6
... 1 more edit: Is there a reason you leave so much spare displacement room? Am I making a mistake leaving so little on mine? Yes, rebuilding will need the spare displacement, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 15, 2021 19:23:03 GMT -6
Ok, I decided after another detailed study of France's geography and geopolitics that maybe coastal battleships with low freeboards might be handy near the ports. So, here we go:  I hear everyone laughing, but just wait.  Stability in a warship is based many factors, one being its width or beam as it is called. Now it's seakeeping is based on that beam but also on its freeboard which is the distance from the water line to the main deck. A Flower class corvette was 205 feet long. Therefore based on the freeboard calculation that was accepted, which was 1.1 X square root of the length, her freeboard had to be close to 13 feet. Now let's examine those calculations for a typical coastal battleship. Let's take the Swedish Coastal Battleship design of 1926, the Sverige class. She was 426 feet in length. This means she would have a freeboard of approximately 22 feet. Here is some information. www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Swedish-Coastal-Battleship-Design-1926-852015957Ok, so now we see that a coastal battleship has a much higher freeboard, and probably is just as fast, better armed and yes, more expensive but in the Baltic, Black Sea and possibly in the North Sea along with Mediterranean, she is perfectly capable of good seakeeping. She is perfect for trade protection of ports etc. Now, I agree that she is more expensive but if I have to deploy 10 or 20 ships for trade protection, maybe half of them could be a coastal battleship. Just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 15, 2021 22:46:44 GMT -6
lol. Yeah I definitely know the differences, and a fast BB is my preference but I wanted it classified as a BC in order to serve that purpose and not mess with my battleline. If what you're saying is accurate that they'll be prioritized for BC duty as long as I have slower battleline units to fill that role then I have absolutely no reason not to build them. Thanks for that! The big question is what sort of role you want to use BCs/Fast BBs in. If you plan on running your main battle line parallel to the enemy in fleet battles and then using your BC line to get out ahead of the enemy and cross his T, then your BC line will be going toe-to-toe with enemy BBs and needs to be able to take a beating, so you really need fast BBs. If you want your BC line to engage the enemy BC line when it shows up, but not to directly engage enemy BBs, then you still need to be able to take a hit, as your enemy will have heavy caliber weapons, but you can afford to have a bit of a glass jaw, because your enemy will have one too, as AI BCs tend to be lightly built. In that case, 12" of armor is fine. If you primarily want your BCs to be cruiser-killers, and not to engage any type of enemy capital ship, including BCs, then a British-style BC with no more armor than it needs to keep out 8" or 10" shells is sufficient. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 15, 2021 22:53:06 GMT -6
1 more edit: Is there a reason you leave so much spare displacement room? Am I making a mistake leaving so little on mine? I tend to try to leave about 100 extra displacement for capital ships, to make room for fire control upgrades. 200 is probably excessive, and 600 definitely is. Keep in mind that you can always reduce your rounds-per-gun to free up weight if a fire control refit takes you into overweight territory, though this makes the refit take longer. |
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 16, 2021 8:46:13 GMT -6
In considering best or worst ship designs, it might be worth trying to build a Royal Navy according to the advice of Bernard Acworth, a prolific British naval writer. He suggested (in 1935!!) building a lot of coal burning 12,600 ton, 17 knots BBs with six 13.5 inch guns, four 4.7", 12 inch narrow belt and 3" deck. (see figure). He similarly proposed 12000 ton CAs sailing at 23.5 knots, 6x9.2", 4x4.7", 8" belt, 3" deck. Source: B. Acworth, The Restoration of England Sea Power, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935 (available online).  |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 16, 2021 8:54:08 GMT -6
In considering best or worst ship designs, it might be worth trying to build a Royal Navy according to the advice of Bernard Acworth, a prolific British naval writer. He suggested (in 1935!!) building a lot of coal burning 12,600 ton, 17 knot BBs with six 13.5 inch guns, four 4.7", 12 inch narrow belt and 3" deck. (see figure). He similarly proposed 12000 ton CAs sailing at 23.5 knots, 6x9.2", 4x4.7", 8" belt, 3" deck. Source: B. Acworth, The Restoration of England Sea Power, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935 (available online). View AttachmentThe book is available through Internet Archive, just search for Bernard Acworth. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 16, 2021 8:56:25 GMT -6
Just a note about freeboard calculations. The formula using 1.1 times the square root of the length was generally for the forecastle of the ship. The quarterdeck was considered good if it was half that value. The 1.1 was after WW2 changed to 1.3 due to the increase in speed. However, most ship designers maintained the forecastle calculated freeboard from the bow are to the stern to improve seakeeping and stability.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 16, 2021 9:00:18 GMT -6
In considering best or worst ship designs, it might be worth trying to build a Royal Navy according to the advice of Bernard Acworth, a prolific British naval writer. He suggested (in 1935!!) building a lot of coal burning 12,600 ton, 17 knots BBs with six 13.5 inch guns, four 4.7", 12 inch narrow belt and 3" deck. (see figure). He similarly proposed 12000 ton CAs sailing at 23.5 knots, 6x9.2", 4x4.7", 8" belt, 3" deck. Source: B. Acworth, The Restoration of England Sea Power, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935 (available online). View AttachmentI think this article says it all about the advantages of oil versus coal. Remember that England has large amounts of welsh coal, which is the best anthracite coal available. It's great if you are in England, but not if you are at sea.  |
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Feb 16, 2021 10:01:30 GMT -6
lol. Yeah I definitely know the differences, and a fast BB is my preference but I wanted it classified as a BC in order to serve that purpose and not mess with my battleline. If what you're saying is accurate that they'll be prioritized for BC duty as long as I have slower battleline units to fill that role then I have absolutely no reason not to build them. Thanks for that! The big question is what sort of role you want to use BCs/Fast BBs in. If you plan on running your main battle line parallel to the enemy in fleet battles and then using your BC line to get out ahead of the enemy and cross his T, then your BC line will be going toe-to-toe with enemy BBs and needs to be able to take a beating, so you really need fast BBs. If you want your BC line to engage the enemy BC line when it shows up, but not to directly engage enemy BBs, then you still need to be able to take a hit, as your enemy will have heavy caliber weapons, but you can afford to have a bit of a glass jaw, because your enemy will have one too, as AI BCs tend to be lightly built. In that case, 12" of armor is fine. If you primarily want your BCs to be cruiser-killers, and not to engage any type of enemy capital ship, including BCs, then a British-style BC with no more armor than it needs to keep out 8" or 10" shells is sufficient. I definitely tend to build and use them as fast BBs preferring to increase size and cost rather than sacrificing too heavily on armor or armament. I do tend to reduce the armor a little (at least belt armor) but very little else. In fleet battles such as the last one I fought against Russia deep in the Baltic proved to me exactly why I build them that way. Wound up sighting the enemy early in the day with my BC squadron to the east of my battleline. When looking at wind conditions and the geography of being able to use my faster BC element to circle around and cut their force off from retreating into port... Well. it was just too enticing a thing to ignore and turned into the most decisive battle I've fought in this game so far effectively wiping out half of their fleet. I wound up rushing the BC's up NE around their line trading blows with their main battle line as they went and had my own battle line cross its own formation to follow along behind at their best speed. Wound up getting between them and the port they wanted to run away to, their entire formation in shambles, and basically just a game of shooting fish in a barrel at that point. It all went to hell when I unleashed flotilla attack on them on top of it with dozens of fish in the water and them so jumbled up it didn't matter if they hit the **** they originally targeted at or not. The point though is my BCs weathered the full brunt of their main battle line for the majority of that battle and even after the Victoria ate a torpedo and their concentrated fire for hours none of my BCs registered anything worse than light damage by the end of the battle. Once my main battle line completed the semi circle and took over the brunt of the fire they took enough of a beating for 2 of my ships to be moderately damaged but the majority of my fleet to go unharmed. The only real casualties I suffered were a couple destroyers during the flotilla attack, a light cruiser that was part of my BC screening force that decided to wander into the enemy formation at the start of the battle for some reason, and a single BB that got hit with a mine as an after battle event, despite my entire fleet being off the coast of Sweden at that point but it was an event so whatever. lol. A single BB was my only real significant casualty and that wasn't even a result of the battle. They lost 10 of their BBs, with 3 of their remaining 10 badly damaged and several lost B's and cruisers as well. Their BCs were the only elements to escape any damage whatsoever as they never approached the main battleline fight. But that battle and the results from it were only possible because my BCs were as heavily armed and armored as they were. They weathered the enemy fire long enough to secure my position and block their escape, and managed to inflict 3 of the 5 flash fires the enemy suffered in that fight (I still haven't suffered any yet) so they gave much MUCH worse than they took. If I had sacrificed either guns or armor in my designs then this maneuver and the results it produced would not have been possible. So yes, my preference is definitely in line with fast BBs operating as BCs rather than lightly armored gun platforms that'll blow up if looked at crossly. lol They're more expensive and perhaps not as realistic when it comes to real world considerations, but for the battles I fight in game there's no comparison IMO. |
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Feb 16, 2021 18:18:19 GMT -6
So while I wait for my Elizabeth's to see combat (she came in over design speed too so I'm thrilled) I'm looking at making my first powerful fast battleship and wondering everyone's thoughts on this one.  I wound up buying quality 0 15" guns from the Russians I just finished destroying, perhaps an effort on their part to get in my good graces? lol. So I was able to scale back from the super heavy 16's and a bug with the unrandom tech mod I used gave me improved quads 15 years too early but seeing as how the AI will get the same benefit I felt there was no harm in taking advantage of it. The improved elevation gives the guns the same effective range as the 16s and I upgraded my secondary to 6"s with 4"s as tertiary. I only shaved an inch off her main belt compared to the Elizabeth but increased deck and turret top armor a fair bit plus a little to my secondaries as the 6's increase my risk to flash fires so can't leave them entirely unprotected. All in all I think they'll make for an even better ship than the Elizabeths that came before, albeit expensive as all hell. The only ships afloat that could face it are my own Elizabeths, thought the Germans are building a new BB expected in the next year or 2 which will wield lower quality 16" guns, lower speed, and much worse armor so not a huge threat but at least ballpark adjacent. I'm intending them to be my next war so want to stay ahead for that fight.  |
|
f105d
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by f105d on Feb 16, 2021 20:01:18 GMT -6
So while I wait for my Elizabeth's to see combat (she came in over design speed too so I'm thrilled) I'm looking at making my first powerful fast battleship and wondering everyone's thoughts on this one. I wound up buying quality 0 15" guns from the Russians I just finished destroying, perhaps an effort on their part to get in my good graces? lol. So I was able to scale back from the super heavy 16's and a bug with the unrandom tech mod I used gave me improved quads 15 years too early but seeing as how the AI will get the same benefit I felt there was no harm in taking advantage of it. The improved elevation gives the guns the same effective range as the 16s and I upgraded my secondary to 6"s with 4"s as tertiary. I only shaved an inch off her main belt compared to the Elizabeth but increased deck and turret top armor a fair bit plus a little to my secondaries as the 6's increase my risk to flash fires so can't leave them entirely unprotected. All in all I think they'll make for an even better ship than the Elizabeths that came before, albeit expensive as all hell. The only ships afloat that could face it are my own Elizabeths, thought the Germans are building a new BB expected in the next year or 2 which will wield lower quality 16" guns, lower speed, and much worse armor so not a huge threat but at least ballpark adjacent. I'm intending them to be my next war so want to stay ahead for that fight. Might I recommend a super firing turret above the forward 15 inch quad turret, just to absolutely crush your oppositions chances.  |
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Feb 16, 2021 20:31:58 GMT -6
Unfortunately I'm unable to replicate what your ship was able to manage, I assume primarily due to the advanced tech you'd have making a big difference as an exact copy of this came in 1,775 overweight for me. Your hull weight lists as 1k less than mine and engines account for another 400 so that's the majority of the difference right there with armor being the next biggest difference. I could do it with 13" guns which wouldn't be a terrible idea for a new BC but just not feasible for the fast BB I want to build.
|
|
