|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 17, 2020 18:21:29 GMT -6
Some books that I have used for reference in this discussion.
1. Warships after Washington: the Development of Five Major Fleets 1922-1930 by John Jordan
2. In Defense of Naval Supremacy: Finance, Technology and British Naval Policy, 1889-1914 by John Tetsuro Sumida
3. The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery by Paul Kennedy
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 18, 2020 8:09:56 GMT -6
I think that we have strayed from the main focus of this thread which was what kind of ships the British would have built without the Washington Naval Treaty. We should return to the main idea of this thread: what ships would they have built.
So, let's build more ships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 18, 2020 11:47:26 GMT -6
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that we have to build battleships at a minimum cost. In other words, cost per performance. So, here is the challenge.
Battleship at less than 4000 per month.
Less than 28,000 tons, 14 to 16 inch guns, minimum of 25 knots, belt no smaller than 12 inches. I leave the rest to all of you. Keep in mind that we need to equip this ship with AA guns and armor against aerial bombs.
Let's have at it, design team.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Sept 18, 2020 12:29:36 GMT -6
Ok, I quickly threw this together 27,900 tons, 8 x 15 inch guns, 25 knots, 12.5 inches of belt- and 13 inches of turret armor (due to the inclined belt, I had to up the turret armor a bit to give it similar protection). Could only get Torpedo Defense 2 into it but it _does_ have 12 x 4-inch DP guns and 12 light and 20 medium AA Deck and turret-top is also pretty light with only 3.5 and 4 inches of armor, respectively, but with the limit of less than 28,000 tons I had to cut some corners _somewhere_ I also went down to 7 inches of armor for the conning tower. IIRC, the British were doing away with heavily armored conning towers after it became clear that their officers didn't like to use them in battle anyway because they couldn't see a thing from them. Note: for 4 inches of deck armor, I'd have to drop the belt down to 12, the turrets to 12.5 and the secondaries to 3 inches of armor - not something I felt comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 18, 2020 12:38:50 GMT -6
Ok, I quickly threw this together 27,900 tons, 8 x 15 inch guns, 25 knots, 12.5 inches of belt- and 13 inches of turret armor (due to the inclined belt, I had to up the turret armor a bit to give it similar protection). Could only get Torpedo Defense 2 into it but it _does_ have 12 x 4-inch DP guns and 12 light and 20 medium AA Deck and turret-top is also pretty light with only 3.5 and 4 inches of armor, respectively, but with the limit of less than 28,000 tons I had to cut some corners _somewhere_ I also went down to 7 inches of armor for the conning tower. IIRC, the British were doing away with heavily armored conning towers after it became clear that their officers didn't like to use them in battle anyway because they couldn't see a thing from them. Note: for 4 inches of deck armor, I'd have to drop the belt down to 12, the turrets to 12.5 and the secondaries to 3 inches of armor - not something I felt comfortable with. Remember that a flat plate inclined to say, 60 degrees is equivalent to 18 degrees. The equation is simple the thickness of the flat plate vertically, divided by the cos of the angle. Good design, with time you can add things. You are making smart changes, the Chancellor of the exchequer says.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 18, 2020 12:39:58 GMT -6
Here is my attempt at the design challenge. This is dated to 1930 so that has to be understood.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Sept 18, 2020 12:59:01 GMT -6
Your relatively weak AA suit is probably much more realistic in a hypothetical 1930 British BB than my relatively heavy AA suit, given that the threat of aircraft was still pretty small in the early 30s - yeah, I couldn't stop myself from succumbing to hindsight. I would not feel comfortable with only 10 inches of turret armor but I really, really like the 6" deck (and that your design is quite a bit cheaper. Also, I _never_ go for 3/5/7/9 secondary turrets, it's always an even number, so the depiction fits the number - yeah, I'm a bit wired like that P.s. My design is from the provided save, so Oct 1928 with the OP's tech and the fact that torpedo protection 4 was available and I could only get 2 in - lets just say that it almost made me feel sick.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 18, 2020 13:12:25 GMT -6
Your relatively weak AA suit is probably much more realistic in a hypothetical 1930 British BB than my relatively heavy AA suit, given that the threat of aircraft was still pretty small in the early 30s - yeah, I couldn't stop myself from succumbing to hindsight. I would not feel comfortable with only 10 inches of turret armor but I really, really like the 6" deck (and that your design is quite a bit cheaper. Also, I _never_ go for 3/5/7/9 secondary turrets, it's always an even number, so the depiction fits the number - yeah, I'm a bit wired like that P.s. My design is from the provided save, so Oct 1928 with the OP's tech and the fact that torpedo protection 4 was available and I could only get 2 in - lets just say that it almost made me feel sick. I based my AA suite on historical evidence. AA armament was not improved until the advance of aerial technology including bombs and torpedoes. If we examine updates to historical battleships, it was done just prior to WW2 and during as aircraft proved their worth. But there is not wrong. As to the turret armor, keep in mind, the turret top armor is inclined. I don't know how much but 10 inches is equivalent to a much higher thickness. I might research the manual to discover the inclination of the turret top. Your design is just fine, now go back in and take that design and update it. This is how real navies did it. They got designs presented to the Admiralty, they were then told to update for suggestions. We are doing just like the US General Board and RN Admiralty Board.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Sept 18, 2020 14:58:39 GMT -6
But the turret top with 4 inches is the inclined part. Turret armor is the turret face, isn't it? And while the turret faces were usually sloped, I don't know if the game actually takes this into account. Anyway. At first, I went with this modification. By dropping down to 14" guns (which don't perform all that worse than the 15s) and by reducing the AA suit considerably, I am able to up the speed by one knot and up the D and TT armor to 4.5 inches as well as getting TP 3 into the design. But then I thought about this a bit more. The required specs called for deck armor to withstand bombs and this means the threat from the air is actually recognized and apparently considered significant. This means, that lowering the AA to a more historical level is a no-go, so I lowered the deck-armor down to 4 inches and upped the AA again as well as increasing TP to 4. Oh, and I had to take the liberty to interpret the specifications as reading "up to 28,000 tons" instead of "below 28,000 tons". Yes, if the air-threat is considered significant, 4" of deck armor is on the low side but we're talking 1928 here so I'd guess 500 lb bombs at the most which a 4" deck should be able to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by vidboi on Sept 18, 2020 17:19:00 GMT -6
Regarding the turret top armour, it's actually reducing the effective armour thickness as in game its inclined towards the incoming fire (from horizontal). Regarding the turret face armour, strictly speaking for the same vertical extent of armour, the same effective thickness of armour to the horizontal plane weighs the same amount (an inclined armour face can be made thinner, but requires a longer slab of armour). Of course, in reality their a complications due to the differences in penetrating at an angle versus perpendicular to an armour plate, but I'm not sure these are modelled in game
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 18, 2020 18:20:16 GMT -6
But the turret top with 4 inches is the inclined part. Turret armor is the turret face, isn't it? And while the turret faces were usually sloped, I don't know if the game actually takes this into account. Anyway. At first, I went with this modification. By dropping down to 14" guns (which don't perform all that worse than the 15s) and by reducing the AA suit considerably, I am able to up the speed by one knot and up the D and TT armor to 4.5 inches as well as getting TP 3 into the design. But then I thought about this a bit more. The required specs called for deck armor to withstand bombs and this means the threat from the air is actually recognized and apparently considered significant. This means, that lowering the AA to a more historical level is a no-go, so I lowered the deck-armor down to 4 inches and upped the AA again as well as increasing TP to 4. Oh, and I had to take the liberty to interpret the specifications as reading "up to 28,000 tons" instead of "below 28,000 tons". Yes, if the air-threat is considered significant, 4" of deck armor is on the low side but we're talking 1928 here so I'd guess 500 lb bombs at the most which a 4" deck should be able to deal with. Nice designs and you are doing exactly what ship designers in all navies do, they examine the design and try to improve it based cost and performance. Suggestion: try to examine the design and get 15 inch guns. I think it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 18, 2020 19:26:16 GMT -6
'Fast' (28kn) and 'slow' (25kn) battleship with ahistorical DP secondary battery: 'Fast' and 'slow' battleships with quasi-historical secondary and AA batteries, with 2x4x14" and 2x3x16" variants at both speeds: All of these have two floatplanes and two catapults, without hangar; the LAA:MAA ratio was chosen arbitrarily. Torpedoes are mounted because I like having the range circle and do not consider above-water tubes to be a significant threat to the ship within the game. I'm not particularly happy with TP2 on the fast battleships or magazine box protection on any of them, but I don't like a belt that's only 12" thick for gunnery engagements, and on a 28,000-ton limit something had to give.
Designs were created using the save file provided in cabalamat's AAR thread.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 18, 2020 19:39:27 GMT -6
'Fast' (28kn) and 'slow' (25kn) battleship with ahistorical DP secondary battery:
'Fast' and 'slow' battleships with quasi-historical secondary and AA batteries, with 2x4x14" and 2x3x16" variants at both speeds:
All of these have two floatplanes and two catapults, without hangar; the LAA:MAA ratio was chosen arbitrarily. Torpedoes are mounted because I like having the range circle and do not consider above-water tubes to be a significant threat to the ship within the game. I'm not particularly happy with TP2 on the fast battleships or magazine box protection on any of them, but I don't like a belt that's only 12" thick for gunnery engagements, and on a 28,000-ton limit something had to give.
Designs were created using the save file provided in cabalamat's AAR thread.
Good designs, cost per performance is very good. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 19, 2020 8:26:47 GMT -6
I decided to examine my books and determine why the Nelson's were built with all guns forward. Simple; it keeps the citadel shorter which reduces the armor requirements. This means a cheaper ship although the Admiralty was not happy because they wanted guns fore and aft. So here is my "Nelson". Just a note: I want to start drawing my own superstructures on my ships, so I going to start practicing today. Be gentle as some of my new designs might as we say, a little off. Any suggestions for the old guy would be appreciated. My granddaughter, daughter and wife are the artists in the family. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 19, 2020 12:55:08 GMT -6
On this design, standard guns fore and aft but I went a different way on the secondaries. I reduce them to twelve single gun turrets like many of the designs of the British after Nelson. I am using this gun data information from a D.K. Brown book.
|
|