Best ships and designs

[asdfzxc922]

Lately I've been having a lot of success with cruiser-like AVs:



If the weather allows for floatplane ops, twelve floatplanes can cause a surprising amount of damage. If not, it has enough armor and firepower to hold its own in a gun battle.

[oldpop2000]

In my research on the design and construction of Royal Navy warships starting in 1900, I've discovered some interesting factual data about the results of Dogger Bank, Helgoland Bight and of course, Jutland. The results of the firing and hits showed that the 6 inch. secondary guns were essentially useless and presented more of the threat to the ship firing because of the extra powder and shells that were stored near the guns, especially in the casemates. It was eventually decided to eliminate these weapons from battleships along with the underwater torpedoes which I've known were considered threats to the safety of the ships. It was decided that to combat torpedo destroyers, cruisers and destroyers should be used, not secondary guns. 

With this in mind, here is my idea for a Japanese battleship, the Fuso. The design is based on the actual historical hit rates and threats to the firing battleships caused by the extra ordnance. I have not tested it yet, but I am going to. I will be pursuing this concept and improving the ships design.



Here is one more, a battlecruiser upgraded to a battleship. She now has two floatplanes, a speed of 28 knots and oil driven. 

[zederfflinger]

Dec 31, 2022 15:03:56 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

In my research on the design and construction of Royal Navy warships starting in 1900, I've discovered some interesting factual data about the results of Dogger Bank, Helgoland Bight and of course, Jutland. The results of the firing and hits showed that the 6 inch. secondary guns were essentially useless and presented more of the threat to the ship firing because of the extra powder and shells that were stored near the guns, especially in the casemates. It was eventually decided to eliminate these weapons from battleships along with the underwater torpedoes which I've known were considered threats to the safety of the ships. It was decided that to combat torpedo destroyers, cruisers and destroyers should be used, not secondary guns. 

With this in mind, here is my idea for a Japanese battleship, the Fuso. The design is based on the actual historical hit rates and threats to the firing battleships caused by the extra ordnance. I have not tested it yet, but I am going to. I will be pursuing this concept and improving the ships design.



Here is one more, a battlecruiser upgraded to a battleship. She now has two floatplanes, a speed of 28 knots and oil driven. 

Its a interesting idea, and maybe practical in game, but I think that the fact that every battleship post dreadnought had a secondary armament of some kind really tells you something.

[dorn]

oldpop2000

This is strange the thing you mentioned relating to torpedoes because if I remember well even during 30s refit of capital ships RN considered torpedoes on capital ships as wanted and only around middle of 30s they put them on lower list so were removed from some ships and even later during design process of KGV they start to consider them as something that jeopardize the capital ship.

[oldpop2000]

Dec 31, 2022 22:47:19 GMT -6 zederfflinger said:

Dec 31, 2022 15:03:56 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

In my research on the design and construction of Royal Navy warships starting in 1900, I've discovered some interesting factual data about the results of Dogger Bank, Helgoland Bight and of course, Jutland. The results of the firing and hits showed that the 6 inch. secondary guns were essentially useless and presented more of the threat to the ship firing because of the extra powder and shells that were stored near the guns, especially in the casemates. It was eventually decided to eliminate these weapons from battleships along with the underwater torpedoes which I've known were considered threats to the safety of the ships. It was decided that to combat torpedo destroyers, cruisers and destroyers should be used, not secondary guns. 

With this in mind, here is my idea for a Japanese battleship, the Fuso. The design is based on the actual historical hit rates and threats to the firing battleships caused by the extra ordnance. I have not tested it yet, but I am going to. I will be pursuing this concept and improving the ships design.



Here is one more, a battlecruiser upgraded to a battleship. She now has two floatplanes, a speed of 28 knots and oil driven. 

Its a interesting idea, and maybe practical in game, but I think that the fact that every battleship post dreadnought had a secondary armament of some kind really tells you something.

Keep in mind that those guns were dual purpose weapons and installed in turrets with high angle fire. I will go to Navweaps and find those guns. They were specifically installed as AAA weapons. 

[oldpop2000]

Jan 1, 2023 4:30:12 GMT -6 dorn said:

oldpop2000

This is strange the thing you mentioned relating to torpedoes because if I remember well even during 30s refit of capital ships RN considered torpedoes on capital ships as wanted and only around middle of 30s they put them on lower list so were removed from some ships and even later during design process of KGV they start to consider them as something that jeopardize the capital ship.

Torpedo technology changed and possibly the longer range and better angle of fire made a difference. I will research that in my naval firepower book.

Update: "The British continued to be interested in battleship torpedoes well after other navies abandoned them." This was after the First World War about 1920. The British removed the subsurface tubes and mounted second deck tubes, about 4 per mount. These were less dangerous that the surface mounts.


Friedman, Norman. The British Battleship 1906-1946 (p. 31). Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition.

[oldpop2000]

Apparently, the British Navy when developing the specifications for the Renowns, eliminated the 6 inch casemate guns and installed 4 inch guns on the upper deck in deck mounts. There were 5 triple mounts and 2 single mounts. These guns provided a high rate of fire and were not close to the lower decks. They would have been the 4.5 inch/QF Marks 1, III and IV.

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_45-45_mk1.php

[wlbjork]

Aye, and the 4" triples weren't all that popular. HMS Repulse had an early, fast refit that didn't touch the guns noticeably whereas HMS Renown had a much more indepth refit that replaced the secondaries with twin 4.5" DP mounts

However, I'd point out HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney both had 6" single purpose secondaries and submerged torpedo tubes.

[oldpop2000]

Jan 1, 2023 13:00:42 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

Aye, and the 4" triples weren't all that popular. HMS Repulse had an early, fast refit that didn't touch the guns noticeably whereas HMS Renown had a much more indepth refit that replaced the secondaries with twin 4.5" DP mounts

However, I'd point out HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney both had 6" single purpose secondaries and submerged torpedo tubes.

The Nelson class were a result of the Washington Naval Treaty and as such, had some real deficiencies. David K. Brown states that "It seems likely that in the quest for weight saving, the structure was not quite strong enough". Neither ship received the necessary upgrades and were unfit for further service by the end of 1944. There was never a chance to do a real upgrade and refit. This should explain the reason the submerged tubes and single purpose secondaries were kept. 

[aeson]

Jan 1, 2023 11:12:24 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Apparently, the British Navy when developing the specifications for the Renowns, eliminated the 6 inch casemate guns and installed 4 inch guns on the upper deck in deck mounts. There were 5 triple mounts and 2 single mounts. These guns provided a high rate of fire and were not close to the lower decks. They would have been the 4.5 inch/QF Marks 1, III and IV.

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_45-45_mk1.php

The Renowns did not carry the 4.5"/45 QF Mark I-series guns until the late 1930s (Repulse in fact never carried them, insofar as I am aware); instead, they carried seventeen 4"/45 BL Mark IX guns in five triple and two single mounts as built, plus a pair of 12pdr (3") QF HA guns as an anti-aircraft armament. The 3" and single-mounted 4" guns would be replaced on both ships in the 1920s with four 4"/45 QF Mark V guns in single mounts, and Renown - but not Repulse - would have its entire 4" battery replaced by twenty 4.5"/45 QF Mark I and Mark III guns in ten twin mounts in the late 1930s; Repulse meanwhile retained three of its original five 4"/45 BL Mark IX triple mounts to its sinking and carried six 4"/45 QF Mark V guns in single mounts at the time of its loss (the four which had replaced the 4" singles and 12-pdr AA guns in the '20s, plus two more which, just before the outbreak of the Second World War, replaced four 4"/45 QF Mark XV guns in twin mounts that had been added just year or two earlier).

As far as I am aware, the 4.5"/45 QF Mark I-series guns were never placed in triple mounts.

[oldpop2000]

(c) An ATB armament of twenty 4in guns on the upper deck, mounted high up and with shield protection only.

(d)No other guns or torpedoes to be fitted.

Roberts, John. British Battlecruisers: 1905 - 1920 . Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition.


These are the ATB or anti torpedo boat AKA, destroyer, armament for the HMS Renown and Repulse, in specifications. fisher later added 2 x 21in Torpedo tubes and 6 x 15in guns.

Here are the eventual specifications in armament for Renown and Repulse

ARMAMENT: 6 x 15in (80rpg) 6 x 15in (80rpg) 25 x 4in (150rpg) 17 x 4in (150rpg) 4 x 3pdr saluting (150rpg) 2 x 3in HA 5 x Maxim MG (5000rpg) 5 x Maxim MG 2 x 21in TT (14 x 21in torp) 2 x 21in TT (5 x 21in torp)

ARMAMENT: 6 x 15in (80rpg) 6 x 15in (80rpg) 25 x 4in (150rpg) 17 x 4in (150rpg) 4 x 3pdr saluting (150rpg) 2 x 3in HA 5 x Maxim MG (5000rpg) 5 x Maxim MG 2 x 21in TT (14 x 21in torp) 2 x 21in TT (5 x 21in torp)


Roberts, John. British Battlecruisers: 1905 - 1920 . Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition.


Later changes put 25 x 4inch guns with 150 rnds on Renown and 17 x 4inch guns on Repulse. It was found later that placing those guns on the second deck caused rapid loading problems for the closely spaced guns.

The reason for the change in secondary armament was to save weight. The Hoods reverted to 5.5 inch guns.

[oldpop2000]

The reason I've been researching the changes in secondary armament on capital ships from the 1900's to around 1939 is to understand the reasons why the changes were made and to inform everyone on the forum about this. I've felt it was important because the game does not really provide the ability to change which deck the guns were placed on and their configuration as to gun mounts.

The changes to secondary ordnance were changed by at least the British was because of cost and data from battles in the Russo-Japanese War and WW1. After WW1, there was a reduction in the available funds for ships, plus the Washington Naval Treaty and the London Naval Treaty. In order to reduce cost, designers had to reduce weight because the cost per ton was the center of the costing evaluation. If the designers reduced the ordnance caliber and the mounts, this would help reduce the cost. The deck mounts did not need the armor the casemates required for damage control for the ships. The casemates were vulnerable to sea spray and shells hitting them and the upper belts. The casemates had a lot of ammunition stored inside, this made them vulnerable.This was reduced by the placement of lower caliber guns on the second deck using ammunition lockers. Both configurations had problems, but based on information from the wars, this was a good way of reducing the chances of an explosion and destruction of the ship.

But all ships are compromises, so if they could increase the length, increase the power in the turbines, then they could increase the armor protection and maintain the heavier guns. However, evidence showed that the best defense against destroyers and submarines was to have light cruisers and destroyers protecting the capital ships and then the secondaries could be removed or downgraded to more rapid-fire weapons some were eventually dual purpose.

Now, the game does not represent this, as far as I know. I would appreciate any information about this. I am experimenting with lighter secondaries or no secondaries to see what I gain in weight which I can translate into speed and better armor along with reduction in cost.

This also applies to sub-torpedo tubes. If was determined that these tubes were dangerous to the security of the ship. Many were replaced during refits to save space and weight. They were replaced by external mounts on the second or third deck.

Anyway, I could use some help in determining whether there is anything in the game I can do to make my designs representative of historical designs.

[oldpop2000]

I started a new game as Great Britain, 1920. I designed a battlecruiser as close to HMS Hood as the game would allow. Here it is:



It isn't perfect, but I believe is fairly accurate. 

Ok, so now after it is in production, I decided to make some changes to gain deck armor. I can only build up to 43,000 tons for a ship, but that is ok, Hood was only about 42,000 fully loaded but maybe more. Here is the updated version.




So, what did I modify to gain deck armor? 

1. I eliminated sub torpedo tubes. This was actually done to many ships in the interwar period.

2. I reduced the secondary guns to 4 in. This size gun is on the second deck and is deck mounted so it doesn't have any armor. 

3. I eliminated secondary armor.

4. I reduced the conning tower armor to 11 inches.

5.. I reduced the belt extended to 5 inches. Belt extended generally is the belt from the Y and A barbettes to the bow and stern.

6. I was now able to increase the deck armor to 6 in.  with the extended reduced to 1.5. The stern and bow areas do not have ammunition lockers in them, so a hit there, doesn't threaten the ship.

7. I was also able to increase her speed from 31 knots to 32 knots. 

My goal was to verify to myself that a ship is a compromise and that this is how I have to approach a ship design within technological restraints. 

I love this kind of fun, I really do. It challenges my knowledge of naval architecture, as limited as it is.

[cormallen]

Uhm... Do you think Hood, which is basically a faster Queen Elizabeth in protection terms, actually used "Box protection"? In game terms (which is itself rather odd as those ships that actually had what they called BP literally just had boxes around the mags afaict? Lots of ships had some variation in armour thickness between mags and engines but usually just an inch or two.) that gives it 12" (actually 13 ish with the slope?) over only the magazines and just 6 or so over anything else?

As to adding to your knowledge of the subject I'd recommend anything by D.K. Brown (who was a designer) or any of the books on "U.S. Battleships/Cruisers/Carriers etc" by Norman Friedman

[oldpop2000]

Jan 5, 2023 16:38:58 GMT -6 cormallen said:

Uhm... Do you think Hood, which is basically a faster Queen Elizabeth in protection terms, actually used "Box protection"? In game terms (which is itself rather odd as those ships that actually had what they called BP literally just had boxes around the mags afaict? Lots of ships had some variation in armour thickness between mags and engines but usually just an inch or two.) that gives it 12" (actually 13 ish with the slope?) over only the magazines and just 6 or so over anything else?

As to adding to your knowledge of the subject I'd recommend anything by D.K. Brown (who was a designer) or any of the books on "U.S. Battleships/Cruisers/Carriers etc" by Norman Friedman

I have four of D. K. Browns books, and Norman Friedman. Thanks for the idea. As to the Hood and box protection, Box protection would be all or nothing armor. I know this type of protection started before the 1900's but the USS Nevada was the first ship to have such armor.  Hood had an armored scheme which was better than pre-WW1 battleships or battlecruisers, but not good like the post-war All or Nothing which the British adopted from the US Nevada. 

Let's theorize that the RN DNC learns of the all or nothing armor configuration from the US and decides to adopt it for the HMS Hood. Possible? Yes, if she was to be built after the 1920's.